[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28700-29273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-240503]



MTC-00029649

Wayne Stringer
1270 205th St
Fort Seott, KS 66701
January 26, 2002
Attorney Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Arty
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse.
    I strongly encourage your support in accepting the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust suit "Microsoft. has 
simply provided a product that meets a market demand at a price the 
consumer is willing to pay. If anything, their competitors have used 
similar tactics to grow their own business--in a sense. keeping 
the marketplace fair.
    The unfairness lies in Microsoft's competitors using the marts 
to accomplish what they couldn't do in the marketplace. ??'s Larry 
Ellison has very publicly decreed their he will unseat Microsoft as 
the number one player in the software industry, and he will do 
anything to accomplish that goal I sincerely object to this move to 
replace the free market system with court manipulation.
    With all due respect. I hope you object as welt.
    I encourage yore full acceptance and approval of the settlement. 
I truly believe it addresses all involved and allows Microsoft and 
the industry to move forward on a positive, note.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Stringer
January 27, 2002, 11:40 pm
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530-001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to voice 
my strong disapproval of the current proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust trial. The proposed settlement is both weak and 
lacking strong enforcement provisions, and is likely to have zero 
(or worse) effect on competition within the computer industry, with 
continued and increased harm to consumers in the form of fewer 
options in the software market and continued increases in the price 
of the Microsoft software consumers are forced to buy.
    Microsoft was convicted of abuse of monopoly power by one 
Federal judge, and the judgment was largely upheld by another seven 
Federal justices. In evaluating any proposed settlement, keep 
repeating one Important Phrase over and over: "Microsoft is 
guilty."
    The seven justices of the appeals court ruled that any actions 
taken against Microsoft (a) must restore competition to the affected 
market, (b) must deprive Microsoft of the "fruits of its 
illegal conduct," and (c) must prevent Microsoft from engaging 
in similar tactics in the future. The proposed settlement fails on 
every one of these.
    (A) Restore Competition
    Among the many flaws in the proposed settlement is the complete 
disregard for the Open Source software movement, which poses the 
single greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's monopoly.
    Most organizations writing Open Source software are not-for-
profit groups, many without a formal organization status at all. 
Section III(J)(2) contains strong language against non-for-profits, 
to say nothing of the even less-formal groups of people working on 
projects.
    Section III(D) also contains provisions which exclude all but 
commercially-oriented concerns.
    To restore competition the settlement must make allowances for 
Open Source organizations--whether formal not-for-profit 
organizations or informal, loosely associated groups of 
developers--to gain access to the same information and 
privileges afforded commercial concerns.
    (B) Deprivation of Ill-Gotten Gains
    Nowhere in the proposed settlement is there any provision to 
deprive Microsoft of the gains deriving from their illegal conduct. 
Go back to the Important Phrase: "Microsoft is guilty." 
In most systems of justice, we punish the guilty. But the current 
proposal offers nothing in the way of punishment, only changes in 
future behavior.
    Currently Microsoft has cash holdings in excess of US$40 
billion, and increases that by more than US$1 billion each month. A 
monetary fine large enough to have an impact on them would be a 
minimum of US$5 billion.
    Even a fine that large would be a minimal punishment. 
Microsoft's cash stockpile is used, frequently and repeatedly, to 
bludgeon competitors, buy or force their way into new markets, or 
simply purchase customers, with the long-term intent to lock people 
and organizations into proprietary software on which they can set 
the price. Taking a "mere" US$5 billion from their 
stockpile will have zero effect on this practice.
    For that reason, Microsoft's cash stockpile must be further 
reduced. In addition to the monetary fine, Microsoft should be 
forced to pay shareholders a cash dividend in any quarter in which 
they post a profit and hold cash reserves in excess of US$10 
billion. The dividend should be substantial enough to lower 
Microsoft's cash holdings by US$1 billion, or 10%, whichever is 
greater.
    (C) Prevention of Future Illegal Conduct
    The current proposed settlement allows Microsoft to effectively 
choose two of the three individuals who would provide oversight of 
Microsoft's conduct and resolve disputes. The proposed settlement 
also requires the committee to work in secret, and individuals 
serving on the committee would be barred from making public or 
testifying about anything they learn.
    This structure virtually guarantees that Microsoft will be 
"overseen" by a do-nothing committee with virtually zero 
desire or ability to either correct Microsoft abuses, or even call 
attention to them.
    Instead of the current proposal, a five-person committee should 
be selected. Microsoft may appoint one person, but will have no 
influence over any of the other four. For the four, two should be 
appointed by the Federal court of jurisdiction, one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice, and one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Senate. At least two of the appointees should 
have technical experience and be competent to evaluate technical 
proposals and arguments by themselves, without the filters which 
assistants would bring.
    These are hardly the only thoughtful and reasonable suggestions 
you will no doubt receive regarding the proposed settlement of this 
anti-trust case. And these are hardly the only suggestions which 
should be adopted if the settlement is to prove effective. But all 
of them are essential to that aim, and adopt them you must,
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
    Respectfully,
    Michael A. Alderete
    569 Haight Street
    San Francisco, CA 94117
    (415) 861-5758
    michael @ alderete.com



MTC-00029652

Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in supp ort of the consent decree for the Microsoft 
settlement. Microsoft has show itself to be an innovator and a 
company whose products make lives better for he average American. 
This lawsuit is bad for consumers and ba?? for the economy.
    By supper ting the consent degree, you will put an end to a 
lawsuit theft has become more political than substantive. The Bush 
administration priorities have been amazingly out of step and out of 
touch with the American public Hopefully they will at least get this 
one right and settle the suit. The I maybe we can all move on to a 
healthy economy and a healthy debate concerning the future of our 
nation.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Tim Allison Executive Board Member
    CA Democratic Party
    Title for identification purposes only. This letter reflects the 
solely the opin on of the signer.



MTC-00029653

January 25, 2002
Renata hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The Microsoft Lawsuit Is Bad for Business and Bad for Consumers.
    For many, the idea of attacking one of the most successful 
companies in American history, and its CEO Bill Gates, sounds like 
fun. But the Department of Justice's pursuit of Microsoft is no 
laughing matter, having cost American taxpayers well over $35 
million in litigation so far and the meter is still running.
    The reality is that this lawsuit does nothing to benefit 
consummers. It does however benefit Microsoft's competitors, who 
after spending millions of dollars lobbying the Department of 
Justice to file this suit want a return on their investment. Also, 
it benefits the lawyers who have made a fortune on both

[[Page 28701]]

sides of this issue... and the Attorneys General and bureaucrats who 
are making political hay, back home by demonizing Microsoft. The 
real beneficiaries are the powerful anti-Microsoft forces not 
consumers.
    The Cost To Businesses and Consumers in Just Too High.
    Rather than protecting consumers, drastic remedies such as 
breaking up Microsoft would be a disaster for consumers and 
businesses. The integration and standardization Windows brought us 
has been a boon for the public as well as for our economic 
productivity. What Bill Gates understood, much to his 
competitors" chagrin, was that consumers- people who use 
computers, not live computers--want an affordable and reliable 
system that works with and understands other systems.
    Government intervention into the world of high tech programming 
and design sets a dangerous and potially disastrous precedent. 
Dictating to Microsoft what technology it can develop will decrease 
the effectiveness of existing products or meet the expanding needs 
of users could cripple the technological innovation that has been 
the hallmark of hour high tech, internet economy.
    One could argue in fact that the genesis of the huge decline in 
the Nasdaq, which so far has resulted in more than $2 trillion of 
lost wealth, is primarily the result of the government's sustained 
attack on Microsoft's right to innovate. After all, today Microsoft, 
tomorrow Intel.
    Over the past 10 years, Microsoft has lowered its prices, 
created a better product, and invested enormous sums of money in 
research and development. This doesn't sound like monopolistic 
behavior by any standard.
    The government's pursuit of Microsoft has cost the American 
taxpayer over $35 million so far with devastating results for state 
and private pension funds, and small investors, all over the 
country, [illigible] state pension funds have lost $144.2 billion. 
Here in California, since the March, 2000, break down of mediation 
on the case, Public Employee Retirement System funds have dropped 
more than $59 billion while the State Teacher Retirement fund lost 
$15 billion.
    We hope the consent decree is adopted and the federal lawsuit is 
dropped. If not, it may be time to [illegible] our elected 
representatives to do the right thing and allow Microsoft to 
continue its history of investment, innovation and improvement The 
American economy depends on it.
    Sincerely
    Joe [illegible]
    Executive Director, SBCTA
    214 East Victoria Street,
    Santa Barbara, California 93101
    Tel: 805.965.9415
    Fax: 565-7915
    email: info @ sbcta.org www.sbcta.org



MTC-00029654

January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D S??et NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a member of the North Carolina General Assembly, I have 
always sought to make government a cooperative partner of business 
and industry. After all, business and industry creates jobs that 
enhance the lives of countless North Carolinians.
    For several years, I have witnessed the federal government's 
pursuit of a lawsuit against Microsoft, one of the most successful 
companies in the history of American business. This suit has cost 
the taxpayers upwards of $30 million over the past years.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approve the settlement that 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft have both agreed upon. In 
addition, I am pleased to say that my state, North Carolina, has 
also signed the agreement and decided to settle.
    In spite of the fact that nine state attorneys general plan to 
prolong their cases against Microsoft, I believe the federal case 
should be settled.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey L. Barnhart
    State Representative



MTC-00029655

January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a business executive who travels to Chicago on business from 
my home in Greensboro nearly every week, I know how important 
Microsoft's business technology is to American business, In fact, I 
find Microsoft's products to be bery helpful when I travel abroad on 
business as well.
    I realize that not everyone travels to the extent that I do, but 
I would imagine that most people who work In business do rely on 
Microsoft products to a great extent. And shouldn't they? 
Microsoft's products are universally recognized as the industry 
leader and they've improved communication for American businesses, 
schools and government.
    Virtually everyone uses Microsoft's products, Executives, 
attorneys, entrepreneurs, educators and government officials know 
that Microsoft is the universal leader in technological innovation 
They all have great confidence In Microsoft's products to get the 
job done.
    I read recently that Microsoft and the federal government agreed 
to settle the antitrust lawsuit they've been engaged in for a number 
of years. That's good news for businesses, families, the stock 
market and the American economy, our economy needs a shot in the arm 
at this point in time, and I believe that this settlement will 
provide it, I request that Judge Kollar-Kotelly approve this 
settlement. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Kumar Lakhavani
    Senior Manager
    HR Dynamics Global Practice



MTC-00029656

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a member of the Greenville City Council, I am concerned about 
the off??er that the Microsoft anti??rust lawsuit is having on both 
the business and educational institutions in our city. I am a newly 
elected member of the council, a member who ran in order to create a 
more efficient government for our ??tizens. I am also concerned that 
the government operates efficiently.
    The American people have a twofold desire in regard to the 
Microsoft suit, as I see it. First, they want the federal government 
to work to create a more positive business climate for all 
Americans. Government needs to use its power to encourage private 
investment, innovation and job growth, Second, it is the moral 
responsibility of the federal government to use taxpayers' funds 
wisely.
    The government's work in fostering a strong coonomy is 
par??licularly timely right now. After all, the unemployment rate is 
up, the stock market is down, and consumer spending is off. We've 
got to get back on track. I can think of no more positive action for 
the federal government to take than for its courts to approve the 
settlement in the Microsoft case.
    Also, Americans today are paying taxes to the federal government 
at the highest rate per capita in over fifty years. It is the 
government's responsibility to see to it that these funds are used 
responsibly for the benefit and general welfare of the American 
people. The Microsoft lawsuit has cost the American people $30 
million to prosecute. It's time to and this litigious spending.
    Thank goodness both parties want the suit to end. They have come 
to art amicable settlement. I urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Craft
    Council Member



MTC-00029657

January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Departnent of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a business leader who has served as Chairman of the American 
Furniture against Microsoft is close to ending. Virtually all of the 
executives in business and industry that I am in contact with want 
to see the case settled.
    Our society has become more litigious than ever. Litigation 
costs business money... and can cost employees their jobs That's why 
l believe that we ought to move beyond this ease. There are so many 
societal problems for us to contend with no the least of which is

[[Page 28702]]

our ourrent economic recession. We need to focus on growth, and we 
aced the government to be a true partner in that effort.
    The company that I own uses Microsoft products every day. t find 
them to be useful in making my business more efficient. 
En??epreneurial life is much different from the legal profession. If 
I am not constantly looking for now niches in which to make a 
profit, my business will lag. Microsoft products have made my 
business more productive, and I think it's time to settle this 
lawsuit so that Microsoft can focus all its resources on creating 
new products to benefit businesses like mine.
    Microsoft and the federal government are in agreement On the 
settlement, I strongly urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to quickly approve 
the settlement Let's set me economy moving again.
    Sincerely,
    J. Ray Shufelt
    CEO



MTC-00029658

Beth Saine
Lincoln County Commissioner
1760 Whispering Pines Drive
Lincolnton, NC 28092
704.735,3297
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions Department of Justice
60l D Strut NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Fax: 202-616-9937
    As a member of the Lincoln County Commission, I am pleased that 
the United States Justice Department is settling with Microsoft. 
Technology is so important to the future of counties like ours all 
across America, and this settlement will enhance all facets of the 
tech industry in the coming years.
    Our neighbors in Mecklenburg County have had many advantages 
over Lincoln County, and other counties in the past. Charlotte is 
the nation's mega banking centaur. That attracts business, and with 
it comes a substantial local fax base. I'm not saying that money is 
everything, but huge counties have had a traditional advantage over 
smaller ones in the past. As a result, they have had an easier time 
funding essential county services, such as school improvements. 
Technology quite simply levels the playing field for average-sized 
counties across America.
    When someone togs on to the internet, it doesn't matter if 
they're sitting in Raleigh or Hanging Dog, their access to 
information is the same, and their ability to profit from the 
proliferation of information is the same, The tech industry needs a 
shot in the arm so that it can continue aiding America's counties in 
o significant way. Fore this reason, I'd like to request that Judge 
Keller Kotelly approves the settlement that Microsoft and the 
federal government have reached. It will benefit Lincoln County, and 
counties like ours across America,
    Regards,
    Beth Saine



MTC-00029659

North Carolina Federation of College Republicans
BOX 16160
SULLIVAN HALL
NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27607
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601D Street, N-W Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As one of the younger members of the North Carolina Republican 
Party's Central Committee, I have a strong interest in how 
government interacts with technology so the economy is strengthened 
in the future. As Chairman of the North Carolina Federation of 
College Republicans, I want to formally ask that Judge Kollar 
Kotelly approve the landmark settlement between the federal 
government and Microsoft. Here's why:
    I do not believe that Microsoft has done any harm to even one 
single consumer. And without consumer harm, what reason exists to 
bring an antitrust case? None. Face this fact: the future is in high 
tech jobs. Also, every industry is going high tech. Imagine the 
damage done by the federal government suing the technology 
industry's leading company. It discourages young people from being 
innovative. It discourages them from becoming entrepreneurs. Our 
Republic will only survive is maintain a strong free market system. 
And our market system can only thrive if companies continue to be 
innovative. I hope the settlement is finalized soon, so that 
American business can operate at its full capacity again soon.
    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Adams
    State Chairman



MTC-00029660

Wake Forest Town Commission
January 11,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a member of the Wake Forest Board of Commissioners, I am all 
too aware of the high cost of government despite the fad that our 
citizens and businesses endure terrible economic conditions in our 
state. Out town needs revenue from increased business activity, not 
higher property taxes. It seems to me that all our local industries 
will be enhanced when the settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit is 
completed.
    As you can tell, I am adamantly opposed to higher taxes in 
whatever form and work hard to ensure that tax money is spent 
wisely. But, the fact is, in our growing community, we have services 
that need to be paid for by government. The best way for our town to 
generate additional revenue is to increase business activity in Wake 
Forest. That is why I was happy to see that the federal government's 
case against Microsoft had come to a settlement agreement in the 
court of Judge Kollar-Kotelly, I know that this case has cost the 
taxpayers of this nation $30 million, not to mention lesser sums in 
the t 8 states that also brought the original lawsuits. More 
significantly, it has hurt business, and local revenues, in our town 
and towns across America.
    I am pleased that North Carolina is one state that decided to 
agree with the settlement and now no more state tax money will be 
expended. I hope to see the same thing happen in the federal case as 
well. That is why t am strongly urging the judge to agree to the 
settlement in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Malone
    Town Commissioner
    401 Owen Avenue--Woke Forest, NC 27587



MTC-00029661

January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530 Fax: 
202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft's products are the greatest in the technology 
industry, and that is the major reason that they are regarded as a 
leader m the American economy. Given that fact, it is no wonder that 
when the federal court announced that Microsoft would be broken up, 
the stock market came to a screeching halt, and tumbled down from 
record highs.
    I am very encouraged that Microsoft and the federal government 
have agreed to a settlement in the antitrust case. I believe that 
this is good for the economy, the government and other societal 
institutions, which increasing rely on industry to invent new 
products to make their operations more effective.
    The settlement provides for more oversight into Microsoft's 
operations, and a more competitive playing field for all companies 
in the industry. That's welcome news for everyone who demands 
consumer choice. It will also send the right signal to investors 
that the government is prepared to work in a cooperative effort to 
spur economic growth and job creation.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve the settlement, 
so that the Justice Department can conserve resources for more 
pressing legal matters. Additionally, closure in this matter would 
send a message that government is prepared to work with the American 
business in taking constructive steps toward a brighter future for 
all Americans.
    Thank you,
    Trustee
    Rowan-Cabarrus Community College



MTC-00029662

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 28703]]

    As a young business executive, I am relieved that the federal 
government and Microsoft, which have been engaged in a protracted 
antitrust lawsuit, have arrived at a settlement arrangement that is 
amicable to both sides. Settling this case as soon as possible is 
important to the technology industry, as well as many other 
important segments of the economy.
    In the business world, companies look at industry leaders for 
innovation, and they often try to emulate the corporate 
giants" successful business strategies. This partially 
explains why the tach sector of the economy has been in a tailspin 
for an extended period of time. When the antitrust suit is finally 
ended once and for all, a dark cloud will be lifted from the entire 
industry. The American economy, and to some extent, the world 
economy has never been more interconnected. Each change within one 
economical sector creates a ripple throughout the rest of the 
economy. A major shift in one sector results in a sea change across 
the board of leading economic indicators.
    I work in the mortgage banking industry, a business that is 
highly sensitive to the state of the national economy. While ending 
the Microsoft litigation will not alone create record revenues for 
our industry, I feel certain that it would boost consumer 
confidence, and encourage investments in many types of business 
enterprises.
    Finally, I am excited about the future of technological 
innovation in the workplace. Microsoft has led the way in this 
regard, and finalizing the settlement will help the company refocus 
on developing new and exciting products. That means a more 
productive workplace in the future.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Stewart



MTC-00029663

January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a long-term care specialist, I am concerned that the tumble 
that the sock market has suffered is draining the finances of our 
nation's elderly. We've got to get the nation's economy back on 
track. The government needs to focus on ways to spur economic growth 
like never before. In less than ten short years, the baby boom 
generation will begin to reach retirement age. A record number of 
seniors will inundate our nation's hospitals, nursing homes and 
assisted living facilities. These people will need savings not for 
luxury items, but to cover living expenses associated with aging.
    Our nation's greatest generation, for the most part, worked at 
one company for their entire working career. Their pensions are 
largely vested in stocks. When the stock market is unstable, their 
financial situation, and living conditions, become unstable as well. 
The baby boom generation are less likely to have worked in one 
company, and are less likely to have saved for a retirement. They 
are, however, more likely to have invested a substantial portion, or 
all, of their savings in the stock market. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE 
STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THESE SAVINGS.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the 
settlementbetween Microsoft and the federal government. This lawsuit 
has been proven to have caused much of the turmoil within the 
economy in general, and the stock market in particular. Our nation's 
retirees need security, and deserve governmental cooperation.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas McCabe Russell



MTC-00029664

GEORGE W. LITTLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
INSURANCE CONSULTANTS--BROKERS
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms, Hesse:
    I have been involved in business, industry and economic 
development for over thirty years. Over that period of time, I have 
come to understand that a quality education system, a solid public 
infrastructure and a strong flee market system are the keys to 
economic development in North Carolina and across America.
    Virtually every societal institution which is vital to economic 
development has benefited from the proliferation of technological 
advances in the past decade. Leading the way in innovative 
technology is Microsoft. Their products have benefited businesses by 
saving countless hours of time and making communications between 
businesses seamless. Microsoft's benefits to the education system 
are tremendous, Research, class instruction and other benefits have 
been realized through application of these useful tools. 
Governmental institutions also rely on Microsoft to maximize their 
efficiency and serve, the public in a responsive manner.
    For these reasons, I am gratified that federal government and 
the Microsoft have agreed to a settlement in their antitrust case, 
Microsoft will be able to focus its energies once again on research 
and development, while the government is granted unprecedented 
oversight into Microsoft's operations. Under this settlement, 
economic development wins, and so do the American people.
    I hope time Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve the settlement.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029665

January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write to express my desire that the government will act in a 
cooperative manner with Microsoft and similar business interests in 
developing a mutually beneficial relationship. I am convinced that 
now is the time to end the federal government's litigation against 
Microsoft. Microsoft and the federal government have agreed to 
settle the suit. The public is yearning for an economic recovery. 
Congress is debating an economic stimulus package. With these facts 
in mind, I am quite confident that we should move beyond the 
Microsoft case and work to get our stagnant economy moving again.
    As an attorney, I realize that antitrust law is an important 
component of maintaining a competitive marketplace. However, company 
innovation and product improvements are as well, and since both 
parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit, I believe that it would 
be advantageous for everyone if Microsoft can get back to doing what 
it does best: researching and developing useful technological tools 
for the American workplace and the American home.
    The settlement guarantees that other companies will have market 
access. Every new Microsoft operating system will have to include a 
mechanism that enables end users to remove or re-enable Microsoft s 
middleware products. While end users can already remove Microsoft 
middleware from Windows XP, this settlement would make it even 
easier for users to change middleware products.
    I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the settlement.
    Regards,
    Phillip J. Strach
    Attorney



MTC-00029666

Professor Eric Brodin
P.O. Box 209
Bules Creek, NC 27506
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    During my career as a columnist and professor. I have written 
over 3,000 articles for various publications such as the Dana Daily 
Record, the Coastal Piedmont leader and other Journals, newspapers 
and magazines in twenty countries. I feel compelled to write to you 
on a hot contemporary issue: the pending settlement of the federal 
government's antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I live in a university community. In the past ten years. I have 
seen a technological explosion on campus that has revolutionized 
learning processes and intellectual research. I have found the 
technological advancements of the newspaper to be beneficial in my 
work as a columnist. The technological advancements to which I refer 
are in no small measure due to the entrepreneurial success of Bill 
Gates and Microsoft. After all, Microsoft has developed products 
that have aided the process of word processing immeassurably,

[[Page 28704]]

as well as improved columnists" ability to transmit data.
    I served as the Endowed Chair of the Landry-Fetterman School of 
Business at Campbell University from 1980 until 1983. During my 
tenure, I did my utmost to promote the notion that our societal 
liberty is largely dependent upon the foundation of the free 
enterpriss system. I fully realize that antitrust laws are needed in 
order to foster a competitive marketplace, however if a 
corporation's business practices do not result in harm to the 
conssumer, the government should not interfere. I have seen no 
evidence that Microsoft's business practices have harmed consumers 
in any way. On the contrary, I believe that Microsoft has benefited 
the American consumers greatly.
    I urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve the proposed settlement 
of the lawsuit. It's time to allow the free market system to 
determine the corporate winners and losers in our great land.
    Sincerely,
    Professor Eric Brodin



MTC-00029667

Steve Tyndall
PO Box 33358 Raleigh, NC 27636
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The business of America is business, according to President 
Woodrow Wilson. That statement has held true for the entire duration 
of our nation's young life Whenever business is good, we say that 
"times are good" in America. When business is off, we 
say that we're going through a "tough time". ! regret to 
say that I believe that tough times are currently upon us and our 
economy needs for business to get back on track. In some areas, the 
government can play an active role in restoring consumer confidence, 
and strengthening investor resolve.
    The stock market is in limbo. Investors are in a period of 
uncertainty that began when the federal government announced that 
Microsoft would be dissolved into a series of small companies. The 
tech sector of the economy, which had been largely separated from 
government, and looked to Microsoft for leadership, became a very 
unstable place for investors and employees to be that day. We need 
to recapture the magic of the 1990s economy by putting the Microsoft 
lawsuit behind us once and for all.
    The federal government and Microsoft are in agreement on the 
terms of the settlement. All that remains is for Judge Kollar 
Kotelly to approve the settlement. I hope and pray the settlement 
will be approved. A renewed spirit of entrepreneurial innovation 
will be started on that momentous occasion.
    I am honored to live in the Unites States of America, a country 
in which we have a fair and impartial judicial system. The trial has 
run its course. The verdict is in. Both parties want to settle, in 
order to save the American people and the American economy 
irreparable harm. It's time to move forward.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve the settlement. 
Senior Tactical Management Specialist Planner John Deere Corporation



MTC-00029668

Scott Lampe
Former Treasurer, N.C. Republican Party
3707 Waterton Leas Court
Charlotte, NC 28269
January 21, 2002
    Dent Ms. Hesse:
    I believe that the United States of America has the highest 
standard of living of any country in the world. I am certain that 
our prosperity is a direct result of the free enterprise system that 
enables our economy to flourish. I enjoy following current events, 
end participating in the political process when I believe that my 
participation is needed.
    The federal government's lawsuit against Microsoft is a prime 
example of an issue that has stirred my passions and evoked my 
interest in the public good, From the outset of the lawsuit, I have 
worried about the suit's impact on the American economy as a whole. 
I noticed that the entire stock market began its slide at the point 
which the federal government annoyed Microsoft's breakup.
    Microsoft's, innovation has been beneficial for industrial and 
educational institution across America. I strongly believe that the 
government ought to be as supportive as possible of all companies 
that are vital to American enterprise and American jobs. It's 
important to families that their tax dollars be used to strengthen, 
not weaken, the economy. That's why I believe that the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the federal government is a 
positive development for America. The settlement provides for like 
access and monitoring of Microsoft. In essence, everybody wins... 
business, industry, the government, and most importantly, the 
American people.
    I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve the settlement.
    Thank you,
    Scott Lampe



MTC-00029669

January 18, 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:
    I am encouraging you to accept the Microsoft settlement. It is 
fair! For three years, I've been reading about the litigation, 
lobbyists, lawyer's fees and millions of dollars in taxpayers monies 
spent.
    It's time to have less regulation in technology and to have more 
competition in the market. As a consumer, I want affordable, high 
quality products that Microsoft creates. This settlement will allow 
the company to again focus on leading in technology rather than 
fighting for survival in the face of litigation.
    Thank you for considering my input as you deliberate this 
decision.
    Liberty Carty
    620 S Highland Dr
    Andover, KS 67002
    Journalism major, Butler County Community College Member, Kansas 
Republican State Committee President, Buffer County Republican 
Assembly



MTC-00029670

Gerald R. Slifka
2028 Winston Place
Waterloo IA 50701
January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I am writing to urge the court to accept the settlement proposal 
of the Microsoft anti-trust case. As a consumer I have witnessed the 
value of our constantly advancing technology on a daily basis. Like 
most Americans I am at the same time thrilled and overwhelmed by the 
new products that are available. These have gone along way toward 
helping work and live more efficiently. I work in the printing 
industry and can tell you first hand that technology has had a 
significant impact on how this industry operates. The quality of our 
work improved to a great extent while the product turnaround time 
has been significantly reduced
    We are living in a time of financial uncertainty in this 
country. We must do whatever we can to regain stability in the stock 
markets and the job market. Ending the government's case against one 
of our leading companies will help lead our county to continued 
prosperity.
    Please accept the settlement before you.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald R. Slifka



MTC-00029671

January 16, 2002 Ms.
Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I appreciate that my ideas as a livestock business owner can be 
shared regarding the Microsoft antitrust ease.
    It is important that the Federal Courts recognize the benefits 
of competition in business and technology. The Anti-trust laws were 
written over 100 years ago to protect consumers. In this day and 
age, it seems, some of Microsoft's competitors want to use them as a 
safe-guard from competition. A better use of the government's legal 
power would be an examination of the vertical integration of 
agricultural conglomerates.
    I personally agree with settlement and hope that you will accept 
it to bring closure to this litigation that is costing us so much in 
time and tax dollars.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon Suhn, Owner
    Suhn Cattle Company
    RR2, Box 67
    Eureka, Kansas 670445-9428
(620) .583-5923



MTC-00029672

January 22, 2002

[[Page 28705]]

Judge Kolar Kottely
U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division
601 D Street, N. W., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear judge Kottely:
    As an educator, with 37 years of experience, I have followed the 
Microsoft antitrust suit with much interest and would like to 
express a major concern regarding the timely disposition of this 
matter.
    I believe the principle parties of this suit have come to a fair 
settlement for all concerned. However, the nine remaining attorneys 
general and the District of Columbia need to put aside their 
individual grievances and settle in the interest of consumers as 
well as the technology industry which so greatly affects the growth 
of our economy. It disappoints me that the Attorney General of 
Kansas is one of the parties who have resisted settlement.
    I am encouraged that this settlement has the prospects of more 
healthy competition in the software industry as well as the 
increasing the availability of a variety of software to consumers. I 
sincerely hope you will actively work toward approving the 
settlement of this case as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Kent Austin, Speech Pathologist/Audiologist
    2520 Coronado Ct.
    Emporia, Kansas 66801



MTC-00029673

Patricia Piester
12122 willow Lane, #1124
Overland Park, KS 66213
January 21, 2002
Judge Kolar Kottely
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Attention: Renata Hesse
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely,
    The Federal government has been pursuing its case against 
Microsoft for 3 years and has spent $30 million of the hard-earned 
taxpayer's dollars in an effort to protect the consumer against 
Microsoft's perceived unfair business practices. The result has been 
confusion and no clear answers.
    The Court of Appeals effectively put an end to this case by 
throwing out a break-up plan instituted by a lower court. This move 
was clearly in the right direction. We should follow their lead by 
putting an end to this case. Nothing good will come from dragging it 
out any longer at an even greater cost to taxpayers and consumers.
    Instead, we must see action now in order to spur the American 
economic recovery we need, especially for our ailing technology 
industry.
    Please support the proposed settlement in this case.
    Thank you for considering my opinion on this case.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Piester



MTC-00029674

January 25, 2001
Renate Hesse
Antitrust Division,
Department of Justice
Fax (202) 616-9937
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my support for the Department of Justice 
settlement in your case against Microsoft. I understand that you are 
close to a settlement and have asked for public input about this 
issue.
    Our tax dollars are spread thin as well our governmental 
resources. Enough time and money has been spent on this case to come 
up with the current settlement. The settlement is impartial and the 
punishment fits the wrong.
    My concern at this time is "who" will actually 
benefit from continuing this case against Microsoft, I believe it 
will be Microsoft's competitors and not consumers. The current 
settlement creates a stronger technology industry and consumers will 
be the overall winners. The case against Microsoft stands as an 
obstruction to progress. We are going through a war and economic 
recession. Refusing to settle and extending the campaign against 
Microsoft is technically out-of-date and just another reason for the 
country slow down. It is time to get back to work.
    Thank you for your time and your efforts to settle US v. 
Microsoft as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Jaye Stretesky
    P.O. Box 2553
    South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158



MTC-00029675

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney; Antitrust
U.S. Department of Justice
601 "D" Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It has come to my attention that the Department of Justice has 
brokered a settlement with Microsoft that could end the government's 
anti-trust case against this company. I am very supportive of this.
    I live in Kansas where our own Attorney General Carla Stovall 
has been. a leading advocate for the breaking up of Microsoft and 
has refused to join. the settlement of this case. I am very 
disappointed that the Attorney General who was elected to protect my 
interests continues to pursue this case.
    The basis for this suit has always been a mystery to me. 
Microsoft creates great products that people want to purchase. 
Because the company is in tune with American consumers and is very 
innovated they have grown tremendously. This growth has benefited us 
through lower prices, a growing technology industry and a previously 
skyrocketing NASDAQ. If Attorney Generals like my own were really 
interested in protecting the public good they would join this 
settlement. Besides, it appears to me that those who sought to 
punish Microsoft are getting much of what they want in this 
agreement.
    I urge you to accept this settlement.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029676

To: c/o Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Date: Sun Jan 27 21:39:18 CST 2002
Pages (including cover): 4
From: Rick Voland
Comments: Please oppose the proposed settlement in United States v. 
Microsoft Corporation.
2120 University Ave., Apt. 210
Madison, WI 53705-2343
January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
602 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
fax (202) 616-9937
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the United States 
v. Microsoft Corporation; Revised Proposed Final Judgement and 
Competitive Impact Statement. I write as an advanced user. I am not 
a programmer, but I rely on computers for my work and am very much 
concerned about preserving diversity, choice, and quality in 
computer software.
    I am concerned about the power of Microsoft to coerce its 
competition. Microsoft paid money to both Corel and Apple when each 
company was desperate and Microsoft could control the terms. I am 
also concerned that Microsoft forces computer manufacturers to 
bundle Microsoft applications with the result that computer buyers 
now assume that Microsoft applications are part of Windows and are 
included at no cost. The settlement proposed by the Department of 
Justice would not cover either of these situations even thougt1 
riley are clear examples of the power of Microsoft to coerce its 
competitors into less competitive postures.
    In Apple Computer's 10K annual report for the fiscal year ended 
Sepbember 30, 2000 is the statement of an agreement between Apple 
Computer and Microsoft. "Microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of 
Apple...preferred stock...for $150 million [p. 52]. Apple in turn 
agreed to limit computer production, and thus competed less against 
Microsoft.
    In August 1997, the Company and Microsoft Corporation entered 
into patent cross licensing and technology agreements. In addition, 
for a period of five years from August 1997, and subject to certain 
limitations related to the number of Macintosh computers sold by the 
Company, Microsoft will make future versions of its Microsoft Office 
and Internet Explorer products for the Mac OS. Although Microsoft 
has announced its intention to do so, these agreements do not 
require Microsoft to produce future versions of its products that 
are optimized to run on Mac OS X. The Company will bundle the 
Internet Explorer product with Mac OS system software releases and 
make that product the default Internet browser for such Mac OS 
releases. [p. 24, "SUPPORT FROM THIRDPARTY SOFTWARE 
DEVELOPERS," emphasis added] The same document discusses Apple 
Computer's continued dependence on CPU chips from Motorola 
[INVENTORY AND SUPPLY, pp. 22-23]. Apple Computer's new 
operating system, now known as Mac OS X, derives from Nextstep and 
Openstep purchased with NEXT, Inc. Both Nextstep and Openstep run 
well on CPU chips by Intel

[[Page 28706]]

or Motorola. I am writing this letter on an Intel PC minting 
Openstep 4.2. Even the bridging version between Openstep and Mac OS 
X (a developer-only release known as Rhapsody) ran on both Intel and 
Motorola CPU chips.
    This cross-platform technology would have left Apple Computer 
far more flexible and competitive as Motorola continues to have 
manufacturing problems that leave Apple Computer with more marketing 
problems (the megahertz gap) and a more hazy future. Motorola chips 
currently cannot achieve the same clock speeds (megahertz) as CPU 
chips from Intel, AMD, etc. Consumers often choose computers on the 
basis of clock speeds, so they tend to discount Apple computers even 
though the Motorola chips accomplish more work than Intel chips for 
the same clock speed (the megahertz myth). Apple Computer has been 
aware of this situation for several years.
    The statement that Apple Computer agreed to limit its production 
is not about Apple limiting its production of the Apple computers 
using Motorola chips. Apple agreed at that time to stop development 
of Mac OS X for Intel which would have been a far more serious 
competitor to Microsoft. A consumer could buy an inexpensive PC and 
replace the Windows operating system with Mac OS X for Intel. Mac OS 
X is derived from Unix and is known for great stability. Also, Mac 
OS X has special software development tools that would attract 
developers because individuals could complete aggressively with far 
larger software colt)orations. Mac OS X for Intel would have allowed 
Apple Computer to move from selling hardware (Macintosh Computers) 
and proceed to selling software only (Mac OS X) in the same way as 
NEXT, Inc. moved from selling hardware and software to selling 
software only. The investment by Microsoft in Apple was incidental. 
Apple Computer's real concern was that Microsoft threatened to cease 
development of Microsoft Office for Macintosh, leaving Apple 
Computer without a strong word processor and office suite. In 
return, Apple Computer agreed to make Microsoft Internet Explorer 
the default web browser, instead of Netscape. Macintosh computers 
don't use Windows, but they largely still depend on Microsoft 
Office, and Microsoft maintains a hold. Microsoft played one rival 
(Apple Computer) against Netscape, another rival.
    In press release dated October 2, 2000, Corel, Inc. announced 
that Microsoft agrees to buy 24 million shares of Corel preferred 
stock at US $135 million. Corel now owns and develops WordPerfect, a 
competitor to Microsoft Word. WordPerfect was once a dominant word 
processor, but is now far in the minority. The DoJ Microsoft trial 
included evidence that Microsoft shipped flawed versions of the 
Windows 95 operating system to WordPerfect developers in order to 
leave WordPerfect a flawed product that could not easily compete 
with Microsoft Word. Also, Microsoft cultivates bundling agreements 
where PC manufacturers include Microsoft Word and other components 
of Microsoft Office with Windows computers so that consumers do not 
even think of purchasing WordPerfect. Then, when they upgrade their 
software, they continue to purchase Microsoft Word and do not 
consider WordPerfect. This agreement with Corel, has Microsoft 
offering .NET, a sort of networking server technology, to Corel. It 
is interesting that Corel now offers all its graphics products in 
versions optimized for the new Mac OS X, and advertises its 
cooperation with Apple. At the same time, it has ceased development 
of WordPerfect for Macintosh. WordPerfect for Linux exists and could 
be easily ported to the new Unix-based Mac OS X. This agreement 
between Microsoft and Corel looks like an agreement to dissuade 
Corel from continuing to compete agressively with Microsoft Word. 
Isn't perception an important part of this case?
    Microsoft bundles many small applications with Windows that 
leave fewer opportunities for third-party competitors. Windows now 
includes image editing software that took away opportunties from 
Kodak. Kodak negotiated some new opportunties. Kodak now offers 
little support for Macintosh computers. The larger number of Windows 
computers is not a true measure of the market here. A large 
proportion of the images on the Internet were created with Macintosh 
computers. The graphics and desktop publishing industries still rely 
heavily on Macintosh computers, yet Kodak digital cameras offer far 
less support for Macintosh computers than for Windows computers.
    Microsoft is now offering very inexpensive versions of its 
software to schools at prices far below even academic prices. Here 
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Microsoft Office is 
available at $25-30 for a fully functional suite, and 
Microsoft Windows 2000 at a similar price. In return, Microsoft 
often pressures schools to replace their server software with 
Microsoft products. These prices are attractive because they offer a 
product students want at an attractive price, but they leave server 
operators subject to pressures unrelated to product quality. Also, 
end users may find themselves with fewer opportunties because 
Microsoft server products do not interoperate well with non-
Microsoft products. Microsoft has a history of adopting Internet 
standards and then releasing an "enhanced" version that 
only works with Windows computers. By the way, the DoJ uses an 
opensource product (OpenBSD) downloaded from Canada 
(www.openbsd.org) for its most sensitive communications that require 
the ultimate in security.
    The proposed agreement (final judgement) between the US 
Department of Justice and Microsoft does not provide protections for 
Apple Computer or for developers of Linux and other opensource 
software (e.g., FreeBSD) that would compete with Microsoft products. 
Linux, FreeBSD, and Hewlett-Packard servers would face unfair 
competition as I describe in the previous paragraph. The DoJ 
proposal does not address these concerns. Please separate the 
Microsoft operating system and application (e.g., Word) divisions. 
Titus, I favor a breakup of Microsoft into at least two parts.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Voland



MTC-00029677

MINDI COOK
4824 SW 98h Ter
Augusta KS 67010
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse, Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice
Anti-trust Division
601 "D" Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I was truly glad to learn that the court was conducting a 
comment period during which I might write to express my views 
regarding the lawsuit currently being waged against Microsoft. I 
have been opposed to this lawsuit for quite some time for many 
reasons, including its high cost to American taxpayers, its apparent 
negative effect on the technological industry and general economy, 
and its attempts to over-monitor the business activities of an 
American company. If I could see that Microsoft was, in any way. 
threatening our free marketplace and driving up consumer costs, I 
might feel differently about the matter. But I see no indication 
that Microsoft has hurt the tech industry in any way. It makes me 
wonder who and what is really driving the campaign against Microsoft 
and I resent having to pay for a lawsuit that most likely serves the 
interests of Microsoft's competitors--not the American public.
    We, the American people, need to have the court decide this 
matter in a manner that truly serves our needs -not the needs of a 
big business. In light of that fact, I ask the court to please 
accept the settlement proposed by President Bush's team and end this 
lawsuit as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Mindi Cook



MTC-00029678

??
2825 Ya??cy St. SW
Seattle, WA 98126
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
US vs. Microsoft settlement. I support Microsoft in this dispute and 
I believe this litigation is costly and will have adverse effects on 
consumers. I support the settlement that was reached in November and 
would like to see a permanent resolution to this dispute.
    The settlement that was reached is reasonable and far more than 
sufficient to deal with the issues of this lawsuit Under this 
agreement, Microsoft must grant the same rights to all of the twenty 
major computer makers who want to install Windows on their machines, 
no matter how the companies configure the platform.
    I think this witch hunt to try and make Microsoft the villain is 
going to have a detrimental effect on the business climate for now 
and the future. Please pick another battle .... like national 
security.
    We are facing a lagging economy presently. We must do all we can 
to boost and stimulate our economy, Stifling Microsoft will not

[[Page 28707]]

accomplish this. Letting them go back to Washington State to develop 
more software will. Please support this settlement and allow 
Microsoft to get back to business.



MTC-00029679

Renata B. Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via Fax  @  202-307-1545
    The undersigned is opposed to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial because the settlement does not fully 
redress the actions committed by Microsoft, nor substantially 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future, or 
most importantly, attempt to restore competition to this important 
market.
    Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the fact that none of 
the provisions within the settlement effectively address Microsoft's 
abuse of its monopoly position in the operating system market. Even 
non-educated, non-technical citizens can recognize the absurdity and 
inequity of the requirement that consumers pay for a Microsoft OS on 
a new PC--whether it is wanted or not--and yet this most 
basic issue has never been addressed.
    Perhaps most appalling is that the proposed settlement does 
nothing to address Microsoft's previous misdeeds. Software piracy or 
violations of the DMCA result in million of dollars in fines and 
potential incarceration, yet no penalties are stipulated in this 
settlement? it is equally disheartening that there are no provisions 
to address future abuses instead the settlement, from a technical 
perspective, appears to bolster Microsoft's expanding control of the 
Internet and other related areas, Letting the US government publicly 
reward criminal behavior simply makes a mockery of the law.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them products and innovation that would 
otherwise be created because of competition. Consequently it is 
incomprehensible that obvious cost free measures, such as a 
requirement for the inclusion of Linux and dual-booting on all OEM 
PC's, is not even considered.
    The finding that Microsoft was (and is) an abusive monopoly must 
be followed by specific, well-defined measures to address past 
practices and compensate those harmed by the abuses, In addition, 
substantial penalties and measurable sanctions are required to 
prevent future monopolistic abuses. Based on past history, it is 
even more crucial that strong constraints be placed on Microsoft to 
mitigate their proven propensity for illegal and unethical 
activities. The proposed settlement is clearly inadequate to serve 
its function and calls into question the United State's Judicial 
System's ability to appropriately perform its purpose. As such, it 
is respectfully requested that the entire matter be reconsidered in 
a public courtroom.



MTC-00029680

Elsie Zeurcher
1556 SW Santa Fe Lake Road
Towanda, KS 67144
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Anti-trust Division
Department of Justice
601 "D" Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I understand that the Department of Justice is currently 
conducting a comment period during which members of the American 
public may express their opinions regarding the Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement proposed by the Bush administration. I am grateful to 
have this opportunity to voice my thoughts and would like to thank 
you in advance for your consideration of my views on this matter.
    I firmly believe that the court should approve the settlement 
which I understand Microsoft has already agreed to accept. At this 
time in our nation, saving resources for homeland defense and taking 
steps to strengthen our economy should be at the top of the 
government's priority list. If the court agrees to the Microsoft 
settlement, thus ending this expensive and troublesome lawsuit, it 
will be appropriately addressing both of those pressing needs by: 
(1) freeing up resources for defense and (2) allowing one of our 
nation's most productive companies, Microsoft, to continue to 
generate health activity in the marketplace.
    Please consider carefully the realities that face the United 
States today and approve the Microsoft anti-trust settlement. Thank 
you again for your consideration.
    Best regards,
    Elsie Zeurcher



MTC-00029681

Jim Morrill
2220 Casement Road
Manhattan, KS 66502-6628
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney, Anti-trust Division
Department of Justice
601 "D" Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to thank the court for inviting the views and 
opinions of individual United States citizens regarding the 
Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit and proposed settlement, it seems only 
right that those of us on the front lines, paying taxes and 
supporting the economy, should have a voice in this matter.
    Free trade is a cornerstone of American capitalism and I believe 
that the court has been attempting to protect our free trade through 
its pursuit of Microsoft. However, in spite of all good intentions, 
the court's efforts appear to have damaged free trade and enterprise 
instead of protecting it. As a result of the court's actions, 
Microsoft, one of our nation's most productive business giants, has 
been forced to pour untold resources into defendin9 itself against 
an ever-changing, never-ending lawsuit that has yet to establish 
that the company has harmed the marketplace in any way. In fact, as 
a result of Microsoft's commitment to improving technology, average 
American consumers now have access to affordable computer products 
that were out of reach to them only a decade ago. In the interest of 
free trade, the court should allow such a company to continue to 
generate products and business without undue interference.
    Additionally, as the court makes its decision regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. I ask that it consider the amount of taxpayer 
money it will save by ending this expensive litigation. Too man.,,, 
hard-earned dollars have already been thrown at this dubious case. 
Acceptance of the proposed settlement will stop the bleeding and 
save American citizens further needless cost. I ask the court to 
make the decision that will truly protect free trade and best 
benefit the American public. Accept the settlement and end the 
Microsoft anti-trust case quickly.
    Respectfully,
    Jim Morrill



MTC-00029682

Logan Overman
632 Tara Court ?? Wichita ?? KS ?? 67206
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
US Department of Justice
601 D Street, N-W Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    As an avid consumer of new technology products I am writing to 
express to you my support for the settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust lawsuit. There are many arguments why the case against 
Microsoft was an ill-founded decision. However, I feel the economic 
reasons are the most compelling.
    The whole premise of the government's case has been that 
Microsoft was responsible for significant consumer harm. It is quite 
apparent this is not the case. Microsoft is the leading choice among 
consumers because they find its products to be of superior quality. 
Yet the government has spent millions of dollars prosecuting a case 
that the public does not support. The cost to the taxpayer has been 
staggering
    The damage this case has caused to our nation's financial well-
being goes beyond the wasting of public funds. This case and the 
government's threat of break-up have served as a deterrent to 
investment in the computer and communications industry. There are 
many contributing factors to the major decline of the NASDAQ, 
however, the threat of serious government intervention in our 
nation's fastest growing industry only added to the problem.
    In an effort to end this case, DOJ and Microsoft negotiators 
have found enough common ground to reach a settlement. Based on my 
knowledge of the agreement this settlement is a solid one. Microsoft 
will be held responsible for portions of the complaint upheld in 
court and an independent commission will monitor its compliance with 
the provisions of the settlement.
    The settlement of this case is a good indication that companies 
like Microsoft will be free to compete and grow in our open market. 
Both our economy and consumers will benefit.
    Sincerely,
    Logan Overman

[[Page 28708]]



MTC-00029683

Kristen Boulware
Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division
Public Comment
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Finally, Microsoft and the U.S. DOJ have agreed upon a 
settlement of the marathon-style anti-trust suit against the 
company. I think that having nine states sign on to the deal proves 
its value.
    From what I have read and heard about the proposed settlement 
that is pending your approval, it goes a long way toward what the 
DOJ wanted to accomplish, but does not completely tie Microsoft's 
hands in a way that they cannot compete. To me this makes great 
sense as a worthy compromise.
    I am hopeful the judge will approve this settlement and allow 
all the case's participants to go back to doing business as they 
should.
    Thank you.
    Kristen Boulware
    11780 West 118th Terrace
    Overland Park, KS 66210



MTC-00029684

Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust
601 D Street Northwest, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement propsed by President Bush and his administration.
    While I appreciate the Department of Justice's concerns 
regarding the effects Microsoft creates in our marketplace, I 
believe the facts all point to this conclusion: Microsoft is not a 
threat to free trade. I believe the real threat in this matter lies 
in the exorbitant cost of continuing to pursue Microsoft in court.
    I ask the court to please approve the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and put an end to this lawsuit.
    404 Traders Ave
    Fall River, KS 67047



MTC-00029685

Scalio, Inc.
Tel: (425)889-8553
Fax: (425)889-9303
6119 114th AVE NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
FAX COVER SHEET
Date:----/----/----Pages, including 
cover page:--------
To:
Name:
Office Number:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
From:
Name:
Office Number:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:
Note:
Ramon G. Pantin
From: "Ramon G. Pantin" 

To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:59 PM
Attach: commenls-040.html
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice representative,
    Attached is an HTML document with my comments about the 
settlement proposed. I have included my background and contact 
information in that document.
    Please feel free to contact me at:
    rgp @ scalio.com
    or at home at:
    425-889-1043
    if you have trouble with the attached documents.
    Sincerily,
    Ramon G. Pantin
    Introduction
    My name is Ramon G. Pantin, I have been in involved in 
commercial Operating System development since 1989. I have worked on 
the design and implementation of a large variety of Operating 
Systems and system software (operating system components) including 
chronologically:
    . IBM's AIX 3. I, AIX 3.2, AIX 4.1 and AIX 5.x UNIX operating 
systems for their RS/6000 product line (recently renamed eServer 
pSeries) as a consultant.
    . Tandem's NonStop UX UNIX operating system for fault tolerant 
systems (as an employee of Tandem Computers).
    . IBM's now defunct WorkPlace OS desktop operating system 
(successor to their OS/2 product) ) (as a consultant and later as an 
employee).
    . Microsoft's Windows NT4.0 and Windows 2000 (employed by 
Microsoft).
    . ICCOS (a now defunct operating system) (employed at TagoSoft, 
Inc.)
    . FreeBSD UNIX operating system (at TagoSoft, Inc and consulting 
for Shawn Systems, Inc).
    . SUN's Network Filesystem V3 for Windows NT (as a consultant)
    . SUN's PC/SKIP product for Windows NT (as a consultan0
    . Impactdata/Megadrive/Data Direct Networks CDNA shared storage 
SAN file system (as a consultant and later as an employee)
    . At Scalio, Inc developping storage management software for 
both Windows 2000 and UNIX systems.
    . IBM's AIX 5.x UNIX operating systems for their RS/6000 product 
line (recently renamed eServer pSeries) as a consultant to Veritas 
Software making changes to AIX as part of an IBM/Veritas 
relationship.
    I have also taught operating systems design classes at 
Universidad Simon Bolivar (Venezuela) in 1989 and professional 
system software classes, both for UNIX and Windows NT. I consider 
myself eminently well versed as a software enginner with 12 years of 
hands on operating system design and development.
    The issues herein are of great importance to me and the industry 
that I am a participant of. I appreciate the opportunity to comment 
about the proposed settlement.
    Below is a long list of comments. Each comment's name is of the 
form "Comment X.Y" where X is the major section of the 
proposed settlement within which the commented terms are discussed, 
and Y is simply a sequential number of the comments that I have 
written and it is actually independent of the acutal comment 
numbering within the proposed settlement itself. Each comment 
includes the appropriate reference to text in question within the 
proposed settlement document.
    I am available for comment and clarification in any and all 
issues hereing, preferrably thorugh email, please contact me at:
    Ramon G. Pantin
    rgp @ scalio.com or at:
    Ramon G. Pantin
    6119 114th AVE NE
    Kirkland WA 98033
    Sincerily,
    Ramon Pantin
    January 26th, 2002
    Comment III.1
    Section III.A reads:
    "A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by 
altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by 
withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration 
(including but not limited to new versions of existing forms of non-
monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to 
Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:" There are 3 
problems with this section:
    1. It allows Microsoft to withhold existing forms of non-
monetary Consideration, because it only prevents witholding newly 
introduced forms;
    2. Monetary considerations are explicitly excluded, they 
shouldn't be excluded.
    3. Microsoft knowledge is irrelevant and hard to establish, that 
text only contributes to the ambiguity of this section. Section 
III.A should be not be constrained or qualified in these ways. It 
should be replaced with this text:
    A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering 
Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding 
any forms of Consideration from that OEM, because the OEM is or is 
contemplating:" Comment III.2
    Section III.A.I reads:
    "1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, 
or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any 
Non-Microsoft Middleware;"
    There are 2 problems in this section:
    1. Microsoft in the past has retaliated against OEMs that market 
products that compete against Microsoft products, not just Microsoft 
Platform Software. For example, Microsoft retaliated against IBM 
when IBM decided to pro-install its SmartSuite product (a product 
that competes directly with Microsoft Office) on its PCs, see 
Findings of Fact, paragraph 122 which reads: "... Then, on 
July 20, 1995, just three days after IBM announced its intention to 
pro. install SmartSuite on its PCs, a Microsoft executive informed 
his counterpart at the IBM PC Company that Microsoft was terminating 
further negotiations with IBM for a license to Windows 95. Microsoft 
also refused to release to the PC Company the Windows 95 
"golden master" code. The PC Company needed the code for 
its product planning and development, and IBM executives knew that 
Microsoft had released it to IBM's OEM competitors on July 17 
...."

[[Page 28709]]

    2. The words "any software that competes" allow for 
retaliation against the development, distribution, promotion, use, 
sell, or licensing of any technology that competes against Microsoft 
technologies. Examples of such technologies, include but are not 
limited to: technical standards, open or proprietary protocols, 
services, hardware products, etc. Section III.A1 should be not be 
constrained or qualified in these ways. The existing Section III.A.1 
should be left as part of the text and a new paragraph should be 
added to the list. Thus Section III.A.4 (a new paragraph) should be:
    "4. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, 
or licensing any technology or product that competes with any 
Microsoft product, technology or service;" Comment III.3
    Section III.A.2 reads:
    "2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a 
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; 
or" Microsoft currently forbids OEMs, or it imposes Market 
Development Agreement penalities or it withholds Consideration from 
OEMs when they offer for sell Personal Computers without a Microsoft 
Operating System. Because of the earlier consent decree imposed on 
Microsoft, instead of requiring that every Personal Computer include 
a Microsoft Operatin System, Microsoft requires that for each model 
of Personal Computer offered by the OEM that each Personal Computer 
of that model be sold with a Microsoft Operating System. If this 
isn't done, Market Development Agreement penalties or Considerations 
are withheld from the OEM. Theoretically, the OEM is free to offer a 
model of Personal Computers for which it expects to sell such a high 
fraction of them without a Microsoft Operating System, that offering 
them in that way doesn't cause harm or competitive disadvantage to 
the OEM. In reality, node of the models of Personal Computers are 
expected to sell in any large enough percentage without a Microsoft 
Operating System, thus the OEM ends up paying for a Microsoft 
Operating System for each Personal Computer for each model that it 
offers, thus it is forced to always pay for a Microsoft Operating 
System.
    Microsoft, additionally requires that the end user of the 
Personal Computer accept a license agreement, and the it indicates 
that if the license agreement is not accepted, that the Microsoft 
Operating System product should not be used and that the Personal 
Computer manufacturer should be contacted for a refund.
    Because of Microsoft per unit per model royalty imposition on 
the OEM, the OEM has no incentive to provide such a refund to the 
end user and these requests are largely ignored by the OEMs thus 
resulting in end users that desire to purchase a Personal Computer 
to pay for a software licesnse for a Microsoft Operating System, 
even if they never use such a software. Given Microsoft's creativity 
in constraining OEMs in their business decisions, a broad based term 
should also be included. For example, Microsoft could 
technologically constraint the GEM from supporting non-Microsoft 
Operating Systems, for example by Microsoft imposing on the GEM 
technological standards that must be used in the Personal Computer 
design and because of intellectual property reasons the use of these 
standards prevent non-Microsoft Operating Systems from functioning 
on the Personal Computer (for example because Microsoft might have 
patents on the technology).
    Section III.A.2 should be augmented with these subclauses to 
allow consumer to purchase Personal Computers without a Microsoft 
Operating System:
    "2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a 
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) 
does not include any Operating System of any kind, or (d) includes a 
Windows Operating System Product and provides for the removal of the 
Windows Operating System Product during the startup of the Personal 
Computer, as long as the Windows Operating System has not been used 
by the consumer, and allows for a refund to be issued to the 
comsumer for the price of the operating system, or (e) in any way 
supports or provides non-Microsoft Operating Systems; or"
    Comment III.4
    Section III.A by virtue of enumerating the activities that the 
GEM "is or is contemplating" allows Microsoft to 
retaliate for any activities not explicitly enumerated in this list 
(III.A.1, III.A.2, III.A.3, etc). A broad term should be added that 
prevents Microsoft from any other cause for retaliation. Section 
III.A.5 should be added (Section III.A.4 was proposed to be added 
above in Comment III.2):
    5. engaging in any lawful activity by any means by itself or in 
cooperation with any party.
    Comment III.5
    Section III.A in the fith paragraph (the paragraph under 
III.A.3) reads in its last two sentences: "Microsoft shall not 
terminate a Covered OEM's license for a Windows Operating System 
Product without having first given the Covered GEM written notice of 
the reasons for the proposed termination and not less than thirty 
days" opportunity to cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 
Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a termination 
notice and opportunity to cure to any Covered GEM that has received 
two or more such notices during the term of its Windows Operating 
System Product license."
    There are three problems with these sentences:
    The time period of thirty days for cure is extremely short and 
would lead to unnecessary hardship on the OEM because of product 
distribution considerations (channel, distribution, resellers) that 
might require a constly product recall to be able to cure in thirty 
days. A period of at least 90 days is more appropriate. It is 
interesting to notice how terminating a Covered OEMs license and 
thus putting the OEM immediately out of the Personal Computer 
business is codified into this consent decree, when any restraint on 
Microsoft's illegal monopolistic behaviour requires (so far) years 
of litigation and continued complaints about how 
"draconian" such measures are.
    2. The non-obligation to provide a termination notice can be 
used by Microsoft as a means of retaliation by not enforcing 
contractual terms on some OEMs while enforcing them on others, thus 
easily allowing for just two such notices to cure to be used as 
retaliatory means. The number of notices should be a function of 
time, for example 2 notices per year.
    3. Microsoft should be required to enforce contractual terms in 
a non-discriminatory way across all OEMs, it should not be allowed 
to selectively enforce contractual terms because it would provide an 
easy retaliatory tool against the OEMs. Additionally, Microsoft must 
show that if it makes efforts to enforce certain terms, then it must 
enforce all terms across all OEM with equal effort, dilligence and 
strength.
    4. The notion of termination notices, per se, is problematic, 
because termination notices might not even correspond to actual OEM 
behaviour but to misunderstanding between the parties or Microsoft's 
desires for retaliation against the OEM. Any such termination notice 
should be submitted to the Technical Committee for technical 
consideration, the Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer, and to all 
the Plaintiffs; together with detailed documentation of the non-
discriminatotry enforcement by Microsoft of these and any other 
contractual terms across all Covered OEMs. This communication is 
important because it ensures that the antitrues enforcement parties 
are involved from the start when any such notice is given. Comment 
III.6
    Section III.A, last paragraph reads:
    "Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from 
providing Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft 
product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with the 
absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, 
promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service."
    These issues should be addressed:
    1. Such Consideration should be offered to all Covered OEMs in a 
non-discriminatory basis.
    2. The Consideration should be objectively measured according to 
established accounting practices.
    3. The Technical Committee, the Microsoft Internal Compliance 
Officer, and all Plaintiffs should be informed and provided a copy 
of any and all such agreements and be allowed to requests additional 
documentation and conduct interviews related to the agreement.
    Comment III.7
    Section III.B, first paragraph reads:
    "B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System 
Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license 
agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without limiting the 
foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable 
royalty for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a 
schedule, to be established by Microsoft and published on a web site 
accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs, that provides for 
uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except 
that:" Issues:

[[Page 28710]]

    1. In the first sentence, where it reads "... with uniform 
terms and conditions." it should read:" .... with 
uniform terms and conditions and Considerations." 
Considerations established outside or after the license agreement 
has been entered should be communicated to the OEMs in a uniform 
manner. All agreements and Considerations should be provided to the 
Technical Committe, the Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer, and 
all Plaintiffs and these parties must be allowed to requests 
additional documentation and conduct interviews related to the 
agreements and Considerations.
    2. Microsoft in the past has discriminated against OEMs and 
other Personal Computer manufacturers (for example Apple) by 
threatening to not make Microsoft products available on those 
manufacturers computers, for example Microsoft Office cancellation 
for Apple's Macintosh systems. Additionally, Microsoft has used the 
OEM prices of these non-Operating System products as a means to 
discriminate against OEMs. The prices and the offering of any 
Microsoft product to any Covered OEM for bundling with a Personal 
Computer should be nondiscriminatory and subject to uniform license 
agreements.
    3. Volume discounts of groups of Microsoft Operating System 
Products and Microsoft non-Operating System Products should not be 
allowed, because it might lead to exclusion from the market of 
products that competed against the Microsoft non-Operating System 
Products. For example, group discounts for a bundle of Microsoft 
Windows XP and Microsoft Office; or Microsoft Windows XP and 
Microsoft Word (or Microsoft Excell, etc); or Microsoft Windows XP 
and Microsoft Works; must not be allowed.
    Comment III.8
    Section III.C reads:
    "C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM 
licensee from exercising any of the following options or 
alternatives:"
    This should read:
    C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement or any other means 
any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or 
alternatives:
    For example, Microsoft could, through verbal or written 
communication, or through the quality of service that it provides 
the OEM restrict the OEM, or threaten the OEM from exercising the 
alternatives. Microsoft has in the past retaliated against OEMs, 
particularly IBM and Gateway, as is described in detail in the 
Findings of Fact through means other than agreements. For example by 
witholding IBM participation in marketting programs, or threatening 
Gateway with sofware audits.
    Comment III.9
    Section III.C.1 and others enumerate:
    "icons, shortcuts, or menu entries" this list should 
be: icons, shortcuts, folders, appliactions, explorer hierarchies or 
menu entries
    Comment III.10
    Section III.C.1 ends in "with respect to non-Microsoft and 
Microsoft products." This should be changed to read: 
"with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products or 
technologies that offer similar types of functionality." For 
example, the technology might be provided by a network service and 
not by a product installed in the Personal Computer, how the 
technology is provided should not be a reason for allowing Microsoft 
to retaliate or discriminate.
    Comment III.11
    In general, section III.C.1 and throughout the document, it is 
assumed that the only way to allow applications or software 
facilities to be used is through "icons, shortcuts, or menu 
entries", when in reality, applications/middleware can also be 
activated by associating it with particular types of data, and when 
such types of data are accessed, the application associated with it 
is activated. For example, when a file with a given extension is 
accessed, or when a URL is accessed over the interact, the type of 
the data is determined and the application associated with that type 
of data is activated. It is vital that such associations be allowed 
in a non-discriminatory basis between Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
technologies. For example, when a Internet audio URL is accessed, 
the media player associated with the data type is invoked to cause 
the audio to be decoded and played. It is not unsusual for multiple 
competing technologies, such as Microsoft Media Player, Real 
Networks and Apple's Quicktime media players to be capable of 
supporting the same data types, thus the preservation of the setting 
chosen by the user is important. Discrimination in this area has 
occurred in the past against both Apple's Quicktime and Real 
Network's Real Player. The document should be updated throughout to 
take into account this form of application activation through data 
type and file name extension associations.
    Comment III.12
    Section III.C.2 reads:
    "2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by 
installing and displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any size or 
shape so long as such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of 
the user interface."
    The term shortcuts should be replaced with icons, because many 
types of items can be shown on the desktop and these are not limited 
to shortcuts. For example, applications, files, folders, etc.
    Comment III.13
    Section III.C.3 reads:
    "3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the 
initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon 
connections to or disconnections from the Interact, any Non-
Microsoft Middleware if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides 
similar functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at 
that time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays 
on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size 
and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding 
Microsoft Middleware Product." Issues:
    1. The qualification: "if a Microsoft Middleware Product 
that provides similar functionality would otherwise be launched 
automatically at that time" is simply a form of restraint of 
trade. Microsoft usually doesn't lead in innovation, it follows, 
copies and bundles other's innovations into its products. It is 
unreasonable to require that Microsoft launch some software at a 
particular time to allow others to launch their software at that 
time. Usually some third party or OEM will developped these concepts 
and only later (much later sometimes) Microsoft will copy the 
concepts and include them in their versions of such functionality. 
The qualification should be removed.
    2. The second qualification is also very unresonable, here 
Microsoft again thinks that it can dictate or retrain through its 
actions (or lack thereof the innovations of others. The 
qualification reads: "provided that any such Non-Microsoft 
Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user 
interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed 
by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware Product." Again, it 
is ludicrous that competing ISVs or OEMs be reatrained to only mimic 
Microsoft's actions when usually innovation happens the other way 
around. This qualification should be removed. Why should microsoft 
care about the size of the user interface? If the OEM creates a user 
interface that is too small, or narrow, or large, it doesn't cause 
any harm to Microsoft, only to the OEM in user dissatisfaction and 
support costs (none of which are Microsoft's concern given that it 
doesn't bare any of those costs, and given Microsoft's treatment of 
Hewlett Packard with respect to startup sequnce shells, it has shown 
that it doesn't care about those OEM costs).
    3. The qualification "if a Microsoft Middleware Product 
that provides similar functionality" also allows for Microsoft 
restraint of other's innovations, the definition of Microsoft 
Middleware Product is particularly weak and full of escape clauses. 
The qualification should not be present at all.
    4. The time qualification and enumeration of the circumstances 
and times under which launching can occur "at the conclusion 
of the initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon 
connections to or disconnections from the Internet" should 
also be removed. There are many reasons why lounching might be 
desireable at other times.
    5. Launching of should not be restricted to "Non-Microsoft 
Middleware", any software should be allowed to be launched. 
Section III.C.3 should read:
    3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial 
boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to 
or disconnections from the Interact, or at any other time, any Non-
Microsoft software is allowed without this being subject to any 
restraint from Microsoft. Mechanisms (APIs, Protocols, Facilities, 
etc) present in a Microsoft Operating System that aids launching of 
Microsoft software at particular times should be documented and 
allowed to be accessed by non-Microsoft software without restraint.
    It should be noted that the original Section III.C.3 precludes 
the implementation of IAP sign up sequences, OEM shells, end user 
tutorials that are desired to be lounched at the initial and 
subsequent boot sequences. For example the OEM might present an IAP 
sign up sequence until such a time when the user as made such a 
selection or when the

[[Page 28711]]

user as indicated that it doesn't want to asked again in subsequent 
sign up sequences. The reason the Section III.C.3 precludes even the 
implementation in the initial boot sequence is because Microsoft can 
remove their own facilities from startup or from displaying a user 
interface, thus forcing the OEM to remove their facilities. Freedom 
of innovation and choice by the OEMs cannot be at the mercy of 
Microsoft's actions. For example, Microsoft might move such 
facilities to the second boot sequence and it might require that the 
system reboot after an initial boot sequence process, the OEMs would 
then not have the freedom to provide their facilities in the second 
boot sequence.
    Comment III.14
    Section III.C.4 reads:
    "4. 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."
    This section should be augmented in this way:
    4. Offering users the option of (a) launching other Operating 
Systems from the Basic Input/Output System; or (b) launching other 
Operating Systems from a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar 
program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating 
System Product.; or (c) choosing to make a non-Microsoft boot-loader 
the default boot loader in the system; or (d) choosing to allow the 
end user to interactively direct the Basic Input/Output System or a 
non-Microsoft boot-loader or any other facility to remove a 
Microsoft Windows Operating System and to provide the Personal 
Computer owner to receive a refund for the cost of the Microsoft 
Windows Operating System from the OEM; or (e) to select a default 
Operating System that is a non-Microsoft Operating System, for 
example by allowing the default Operating System to start without 
user intervention after a timeout period; or (I3 any other form of 
restraint that might cause an OEM to not preload non-Microsoft 
Operating systems in theft Personal Computers (for example by having 
the Microsoft Operating System corrupt the disk occupied used by 
such non-Microsoft Operating Systems, or from denying supprt to OEMs 
for such product configurations, etc)..
    Given the nature of existing restraints by Microsoft in this 
area, these additional clauses allow for less restraint by Microsoft 
on the OEMs actions.
    Comment III.15
    Section III.D reads:
    "D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 
1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final 
Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer 
Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and 
related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. In the case of 
a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures 
required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last 
major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of 
a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations 
imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner." 
Issues:
    1. The text "via the Microsoft Developer Network 
("MSDN") or similar mechanisms" allows Microsoft 
not to use the MSDN program which is broadly available and non-
discriminatory, and allows instead for Microsoft to extract other 
agreements and conditions from the interested parties. The intent 
should by "via the Microsoft Developer Network 
("MSDN") or successor developer program (if the MSDN 
program is discontinued or replaced by a new developer program, but 
such a program should be equally broadly available and equally 
nondiscriminatory as the MSDN program was on the earliest date the 
proposed consent decree was filled with the Court by Microsoft and 
the Plaintiffs)."
    2. The text "APIs and related Documentation" should 
be extended to include "APIs, related Documentation, 
Protocols, File Formats, Data Formats, Certification/Validation 
Component Signatures, and any other technological mechanism".
    3. The text "that are used by Microsoft Middleware to 
interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product ", given 
the loose definition and the escape clauses that Microsoft can 
invoke in that definition, and given that Microsoft also markets a 
wide variety of non-Middleware software and hardware, the text 
should be corrected to require full disclosure of the use by these 
software and hardware products of Microsoft Operating System 
facilities. The proposed text is shown below.
    4. The requirement that disclosure only occur in the case of a 
new major version of Microsoft Middleware allows Microsoft an easy 
exit from their documentation requirements. Microsoft has stated in 
fron of the District Court (Judge Jackson) that a sandwich would be 
part of the Operating System if they so dictated, clearly Microsoft 
cannot be trusted to name a release major or non-major, because to 
Microsoft it would be whatever they desire at such a time. 
Furthermore the mechanism of Major and first Minor point release 
numbers is highly ambiguous and maleable, certain Microsoft products 
don't even have a version number (Windows XP, Microsot .Net). In any 
case, whether a product release is major or minor should not be an 
excuse for non-diclosure, a small bug fix release wouldn't have many 
changes on interface use, so its documentation requirements would be 
proportional to the effort spent in the release development. If this 
restriction is not removed, facilities would remain undocumented, 
simply because Microsoft doesn't use them initially in their so 
called major release but instead only uses them initially in a minor 
release; or even more easily by making every release a minor 
release. Microsoft has shown in the earlier Consent Decree entered 
with the D.O.J. that it will take advantage in any ambiguity.
    The new section should thus read:
    D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment 
to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, 
and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network 
("MSDN") or successor developer program (if the MSDN 
program is discontinued or replaced by a new developer program, but 
such a program should be equally broadly available and equally non-
discriminatory as the MSDN program was on the earliest date the 
proposed consent decree was filled with the Court by Microsoft and 
the Plaintiffs), the APIs, related Documentation, Protocols, File 
Formats, Data Formats, Certification/Validation Component Signatures 
(and Microsoft shall not restraint or deny such signature facilities 
or enablements, and any other technological mechanism that are used 
by Microsoft Middleware, Microsoft Application, Microsoft Hardware 
Products, or by newly introduced Microsoft Operating System features 
(that are similar to existing facilities available from third 
parties in the market) to intemperate with a Windows Operating 
System Product. In the case of a any new version of Microsoft 
Middleware or Microsoft Operating Systems, or Microsoft Application, 
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.
    Comment III.16
    Section III.E should be augmented where it reads "on 
reasonable and non-discriminatory tcrms" to read "on 
reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-royalty bearing terms." 
The imposition of per unit royalties as a condition to grant access 
to any Communication Protocol would allow Microsoft to exclude 
competitors from the market.
    Comment III.17
    Section III.E reads:
    "E. Starting nine months after the submission of this 
proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available 
for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating 
with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any 
Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final 
Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows 
Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) 
used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of 
software code to the client operating system product) with a 
Microsoft server operating system product."
    There are many issues with this section:
    1. Communication Protocols can be used for communication between 
two or more personal computers running a Windows Operating System 
Product installed on client computers. For example a client computer 
can share a disk drive so that its file are accessed to other client 
computers, such functionality doesn't require a Microsoft server 
operating system product. The ability to interoperate natively 
should not be

[[Page 28712]]

restricted to the Communication Protocols used to interoperate 
natively with a Microsoft server operating system product, for 
example a competing non-server client operating system might require 
to implement these protocols to be competitive. For example, both 
Apple's MacOS X client operating system and client versions of the 
GNU/Linux operating systems contain incomplete implementations of 
the file sharing protocols used by Windows Operating System ). 
Section III.E shall apply equally to both client and server 
operating systems to allow them interoperate natively with Windows 
Operating System Products installed on client computers.
    2. To circumvent the provisions in Section III.E Microsoft could 
do this in future (major or minor) releases of its Personal Computer 
Operating System Products: (a) do not include software that 
implements future revisions of a Communications Protocol with the 
Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer; and 
(b) request from the Microsoft server operating system product the 
software that the client requies at first boot, each boot, or at 
under other circumstances. Thus Microsoft would have circumvented 
the requirements stated in Section III.E because there would be 
"addition of software code to the client operating system 
product" (which Section III.E.ii requires that it be 
"without the addition of software code to the client operating 
system product"). By Microsoft implementing a new protocol 
(which it would not have trouble documenting to 3rd parties) that 
the client computer's Windows Operating System Product would use to 
request these addional software codes from a Microsoft server 
operating system product the circumvention would have been achieved. 
Thus by removing the existing components that implement existing 
Communications Protocols all kinds of Communications Protocols would 
thus be allowed to remain undocument in future releases of a Windows 
Operating System Product by Microsoft, thus denying the purpose of 
allowing native interoperability between other operating systems and 
Windows Operating System Products. Microsoft, through privave key 
signin and public key signature validation, Microsoft would be able 
to sign these software components to ensure their origins 
(Microsoft) and that they have not ben tampered, thus allowing every 
Communications Protocols to remain undocumented, including security 
protocols, filesystem protocols, transaction management protocols, 
etc. The intent of Section III.E is good because it is pro-
competitive, but the actual terms easily allow Microsoft to 
circumvent that intent. Software is very maleable, terms used to 
describe it, such as: "without the addition of software 
code" are easily circumvented, for example by slicing the 
software and requiting thatthere be "addition of software 
code", this can be done easily and transparently (i.e. without 
knowledge by end user).
    3. The word "implemented" is also used to describe 
the software, and can lead to arguments or circumvention from 
Microsof with respect to meaning.
    4. The description of what is being made available is ambiguous. 
Instead of "Microsoft shall make available .... any 
Communications Protocol", it should be stated clearly what is 
being made available. A description of what should be made available 
is shown in the proposed revision to Section III.E below.
    Section III.E should be replaced with:
    E. Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed 
Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use 
by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable (without an up front 
fee and royalty free) and non-discriminatory terms (consistent with 
Section III.I), technical implementations for any Communications 
Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is 
submitted to the Court, utilized by a Windows Operating System 
Product nstalled on a client computer to interoperate with (i) a 
Microsoft server operating system product, or (ii) a Windows 
Operating System Product. The means through which any such 
Communications Protocol shall be made available shall include:
    (a) a non-fee based and non-royalty based patent license to any 
and all patents required by an implementation of fully featured, 
high performance, and interoperable client or server operating 
system product components that implement the Communication Protocols 
in question. The patent license can be limited to be for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with Windows Operating System Products 
installed on a client computers; and
    (b) a non-fee based and non-royalty based license to implement 
the Communications Protocol in client and server operating system 
product components that are fully featured, high performance, and 
interoperable with Windows Operating System Products installed on a 
client computers. The protocol license can be limited to be for the 
sole purpose of interoperating with Windows Operating System 
Products installed on a client computers; and
    (c) a technical discussion forum (mail list, newsgroup or web 
site) through which Microsoft will provide in a nondiscriminatory 
basis non-fee based technical support to ISVs that require support 
related to the Communications Protocol. Microsoft shall make its 
best efforts to provide such technical support. Microsoft shall 
provide subject to the Communication Protocol license the 
Communications Protocol specifications which shall be:
    (d) the precise and complete set of specifications of the 
Communication Protocols (and their predecessors), such that based on 
it a competent third party software developper would be capable of 
implementing fully featured, high performance, and interoperable 
operating system product components that implement the Communication 
Protocols in question (without the need to perform any reverse 
engineering of any kind); or In the abscence of such a precise and 
complete set of specifications as described in Section III.E.a 
(above), or at Microsoft's choosing or by direction of the 
Technicall Committee, Microsoft shall provide instead:
    (e) any and all specifications that Microsoft has of the 
Communication Protocols (and their predecessors); and the complete 
source code and build procedures of all the relevant client side 
components and implementations (for each Microsoft Windows Operating 
System Product) of the Communications Protocol in a form that these 
components can be compiled (i.e. translated from source code form 
into binary form) and linked (translated from object form into a 
binary executable form) by the third party to produce the exact same 
binaries of the native components in the Windows Operating System 
Product that implement the Communication Protocols. The license 
under which these component's source codes and build procedures 
would be provided to the third party would be only for reference and 
use only within the third parties premises for the sole purpose of 
implementing fully featured, high performance, and interoperable 
operating system product components that implement the 
Communications Protocol in question. No redistribution rights of any 
kind (in binary or source form) are required to be given to the 
third party.
    Additionally:
    (f) Microsoft shall continuously and proactively provide updates 
to the third party such that the third party can continue to 
implement fully featured, high performance, and interoperable 
operating system product components that implement the Communication 
Protocols in question as the corresponding Microsoft Windows 
Operating System Products implement new patents, versions or 
features of the Communications Protocol. These updates should be 
provided irrespective of how major or minor is the Microsoft Windows 
Operating System Product update that makes use of the Communications 
Protocol changes or patents. Microsoft shall provide these through 
addendums:
    (i) to the licenses described in Sections III.E.a and III.E.b to 
cover new patents or protocol revisions or versions as appropriate; 
and
    (ii) the specifications and implementations described or 
provided in Sections III.E.d and III.E.e as appropriate
    Comment III.18
    Section III.F.1.a reads:
    "a. developing, using, distributing, promoting or 
supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform 
Software or any software that runs on any software that competes 
with Microsoft Platform Software, or" Microsoft has shown that 
it retaliates against OEMs when they support now-Microsoft software 
in general, not just Microsoft Platform Software, for example the 
retaliation against IBM because of IBM's intent to bundle SmartSuite 
with their Personal Computers as can be seen in the Findings of 
Fact.
    Section III.F.1.a should be expanded to read:
    a. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, Microsoft 
Operating Systems, Microsoft Application Software, Microsoft 
Hardware or any other Microsoft supported technologies or any 
software that runs on any software

[[Page 28713]]

that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, Microsoft Operatin 
Systems, Microsoft Application Software, Microsoft Hardware or any 
other Microsoft supported technologies; or
    Comment III.19
    Section III.F.2 reads:
    "2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating 
to a Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of 
any Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, 
distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft 
Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that 
competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may 
enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's 
development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if 
those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable 
scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation 
of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or 
to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft."
    Issues:
    1. Again, Microsoft retaliates against OEMs (IBM) to product 
Microsoft products other than its Operating Systems.
    2. Allowing Microsoft to enter into agreements that "place 
any limitations on ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion 
of any such software" is an open ended means under which 
Microsoft can cause ISV's to act in manners that Microsoft desires. 
For example, Microsoft might extend the MSDN agreements with limited 
sublicensing of Microsoft patent pools and extract in exchange 
agreements from all 1SVs in the market to limit their development, 
use, distribution or promotion of any other software. The litigation 
to ensure that those limitations are not "reasonably necessary 
to and of reasonable scope" would probably take another 4 
years of litigation. The Plaintiffs must remember that one of 
Microsoft's options at any time is to relly on the ambiguities of 
these terms and use them to realize their means, given that it has 
been shown that Microsoft has monopoly power int he x86 compatible 
Personal Computer market its retaliatory means must be reduced as 
much as possible.
    Section III.F.2 should read:
    2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a 
Windows Operating System Product, Microsoft Application Software, 
Microsoft Hardware or any other Microsoft supported technologies, 
that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's 
refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any 
software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, Microsoft 
Operatin Systems, Microsoft Application Software, Microsoft Hardware 
or any other Microsoft supported technologies or any software that 
runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software. 
Microsoft may not enter into any agreements that place limitations 
on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion of any such 
software for any reason.
    Microsoft has more than enough resources to all the software 
development that it requires, if it has to felly on outside parties 
to do software development, it must do so without placing 
limitations.
    Comment III.20
    Section III.G.1 reads:
    "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, or"
    These are the issues:
    1. The text: "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" allows Microsoft to extract 
agreements from these parties under which at least, by assuring 
itself of a 50% distribution, promotion or usage share it guarantees 
that no competitors technology can be bradly available on a large 
fraction of Personal Computers so that it can become a platform for 
cross-platform software. For example by ensuring that 50% of new 
Personal Computers don't include such software, Microsoft can ensure 
that such software doesn't obtain critical mass as a platform.
    2. These kinds of allowances, given Microsoft's behavior, only 
serve to codify Microsoft's right to extinguish competition. It 
codifies the right and means through which Microsoft can cut other 
parties "air supply".
    3. By restricting these terms to "Microsoft Platform 
Software" it allows Microsoft to enter other kinds of 
agreements in which the means to kill innovation and drive others 
off the market is by developping non-Platform Software, for example 
by developping Applications, giving them for free and forcing these 
parties to distribute them at 50% usage share. The whole exception 
should be removed and Section III.G.1 should read: 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, Microsoft Operatin Systems, Microsoft Application 
Software, Microsoft Hardware or any other Microsoft supported 
technologies, or Furthermore, the agreement that Microsoft might 
enter might require that the OEM doesn't distribute certain non-
Microsoft Sofware without actually requiring the distribution of 
Microsoft technologies. Thus a new clause should be added, Section 
III.G.3:
    3. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on 
the condition that such entity refrains in any way or percentage 
from distributing, promoting, using, or supporting, any non-
Microsoft software or technologies
    Comment III.21
    Section III.G.2 reads:
    "G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
    2. any LAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or 
elsewhere in any Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP 
on the condition that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, 
promoting or using any software that competes with Microsoft 
Middleware." Again the restriction is too narrow with respect 
to Microsoft's other means of distributing software, it should read:
    2. any LAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or 
elsewhere in any Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP 
on the condition that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, 
promoting or using any software that competes with Microsoft 
Middleware, Microsoft Platform Software, Microsoft Operatin Systems, 
Microsoft Application Software, Microsoft Hardware or any other 
Microsoft supported technologies
    Comment III.22
    Section III.G contains this, it is the second to last paragraph 
in the section: "Nothing in this section shall prohibit 
Microsoft from entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) 
any joint development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, 
IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a new product, technology or service, or 
any material value-add to an existing product, technology or 
service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM 
contribute significant developer or other resources, that prohibits 
such entity from competing with the object of the joint venture or 
other arrangement for a reasonable period of time." Microsoft 
should be allowed to enter into these arrangements, but it should be 
allowed to require it to "prohibits such entity from competing 
with the object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a 
reasonable period of time.". Again, "reasonable period 
of time" is ambiguous and open ended, and non-compete clauses 
have no pro-competive role other than exclusionary when included in 
agreements by a Monopolist such as Microsoft. Joint development or 
joint services agreements should not be restricted in this manner. 
If an actual separate entity is formed, a joint venture that 
includes the incorporation or foundation of a separate independent 
legal entity, the entity in question could have non-competition 
restrictions placed on it, but not the shareholder companies 
themselves (i.e. Microsoft and the other party).
    Comment III.23
    Section III.G, last paragraph, reads:
    This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft 
licenses intellectual property in from a third party. This 
statement, is very ambiguous and unqualified. The meaning of 
"Microsoft licenses intellectual property in from a third 
party" could easily mean that Microsoft products that include 
any third party intellectual propery are exempt from the

[[Page 28714]]

section. Most Microsoft products contain third party software, 
certainly its operating systems do (for example the Vcritas/Seagate 
backup software and the Veritas Volume Manager included in both 
Windows XP and Windows 2000; the BSD software included in Windows 
2000 and Windows XP; the Mosaic sofware included in all version of 
Internet Explorer; the Java software included in Windows 2000 and 
Windows XP; the printing drivers and other device drivers from IHVs 
included in Windows 2000 and Windows XP; the amount of software 
licensed into these products is very large; etc). Additionally, 
there can also be other forms of intellectual licenses that apply to 
these and other products (for example licenses to use patents of 
third parties). If the clause is intended to mean something 
different from my interpretation, please explain what it is intended 
to mean, and what terms in that sentence ensures that only that 
meaning is allowed.
    This sentence should be removed completely from this section. 
Alternatively, a sentence that says:
    Where terms in this section would cause a third party who has 
licensed software or any other form of intellectual property to 
Microsoft to have its license agreement violated then the specific 
terms in this section that would cause such a license breach do not 
apply. Unless the third party, at its own discrtion, chooses to 
allow the specific violations under an agreement amendment. 
Violation of the license agreement means violation to the detriment 
of the interest of the third party and not violation to the 
detriment of Microsoft's interests. Additionally, Microsoft should 
proactively inform the Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer, the 
Technical Committee, and the Plaintiffs about the circumstances in 
question and provide, as priviledged communication and without 
violating the interests of the third party, all information required 
for their enforcement activities.
    Comment III.24
    Section III.H.2 (the first such section, there are two such 
sections in Section III.H) reads:
    "2. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily available 
from the desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM 
preinstallation kits), and Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a 
mechanism which may, at Microsoft's option, require confirmation 
from the end user) to designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product 
to be invoked in place of that Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice 
versa) in any case where the Windows Operating System Product would 
otherwise launch the Microsoft Middleware Product in a separate Top-
Level Window and display either (i) all of the user interface 
elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware 
Product."
    These are the issues:
    The text "require confirmation from the end user" 
should include statements that ensure that Microsoft will not act in 
a discriminatory or derrogatory manner in those confirmations. For 
example, Microsoft should not be allowed to include as part of that 
confirmation process: documentation, help, verbal communitation or 
any other means discriminatory or derrogatory statements. Examples 
of such statemetns are: "By choosing this option, Microsoft 
voids the warranty of the product or disclaims its obligation to 
provide support. Microsoft has not tested this third party option, 
use at your own risk. Use of this option might cause data loss, 
corruption, etc." Microsoft has included messages in their 
products purposedly to cause third parties to not use non-Microsoft 
technology. The Windows 3.0 betas included messages similar to these 
when Windows realized that it was running on top of Digital 
Research's DR-DOS Operating System (instead of running on top of 
Microsoft's MS-DOS).
    2. These statements: "launch the Microsoft Middleware 
Product in a separate Top-Level Window and display either (i) all of 
the user interface elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft 
Middleware Product." allow for Microsoft to easily subvert the 
intent by not Trademarking the Microsoft Middleware (while allowing 
compound Trademarks suchs as "Windows (R) Stuff'), by only 
showing all but one (1) of the user interface elements. The 
restriction to a separate Top-Level Window means that by providing 
it in a subwindow of an existing window on in a visually separate 
top level window that is controlled by a Microsoft non-separate or 
independent process, these escape clauses, again provide Microsoft 
with a a myriad ways to escape the intent of the clause. 
Additionally because of the software maleability the restriction to 
only Microsot1 Middleware Products should not apply.
    Section III.H.2 (the first such section, there are two such 
sections in Section III.H) should read:
    2. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily available from the 
desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation 
kits), and Non-Microsoft software and technologies (via a mechanism 
which may, at Microsoft's option, require confirmation from the end 
user in a non-discriminatory and non-derrogatory manner) to 
designate a Non-Microsoft software or technologies to be invoked in 
place of any Microsoft Middleware, Microsoft Application or any 
Microsoft Operating System feature that existed in the market as a 
third party product prior to Microsoft's incorpration of such a 
feature into its Operating System (or vice versa) in any case where 
the Windows Operating System Product would otherwise launch the 
Microsoft Middleware Product, Microsoft Applications or any such 
Microsoft Operating System.
    Comment III.25
    Section III.H.3 allows for "(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". Such confirmation 
must be sought through non-discriminatory and non-derrogatory means 
(as outlined in Comment III.23). Additionally such confirmation from 
the end user must allow the user to reject the continued request for 
this confirmation by providing an easily visible checkbox that 
indicates: "would you like to be asked this question again in 
the future?" if the user doesn't want this question to be 
asked in the future it selects the checkbox and the question is 
never asked again (and the current settings remain unchanged).
    Comment III.26
    Section III.H.3.2 (the second such section, there are two such 
sections in Section III.H) reads:
    "2. that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails 
to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement 
to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary 
for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with 
functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, 
provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably 
prompt manner to any ISV that requests them."
    Issues:
    1. The "designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" 
term should be "designated Non-Microsoft software or 
technology".
    2. Requirements to host a paricular ActiveX control must require 
that Microsoft proactively documents the interfaces of the 
particular Active) control, and doesn't prevent through signature or 
any other mechanism such hosting by the Non-Micorosft software or 
technology.
    3. The "provided that the technical reasons are described 
in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests them" 
text shold read "Microsoft must pro-actively and broadly 
(through the MSDN program and web sites) describe the technical 
reasons reasonable manner." Any such "valid technical 
reasons" must be communicated to the Technical Committee, the 
Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer and the Plaintiffs.
    Section III.H.3.2 (the second such section, there are two such 
sections in Section III.H) should read:
    "2. that designated Non-Microsoft software or technology 
fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a 
requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is 
necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with 
functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, 
provided that the technical reasons and detailed and complete 
technical documentation and mechanisms (component signatures) are 
described in a reasonably prompt manner to all ISVs through the MSDN 
program or its successor. Addionally the valid technical reasons and 
any other information relevant to the reasons must be communicated 
to the Technical Committee, the Microsoft Internal Compliance 
Officer, the Plaintiffs and the ISVs in question."
    Comment III.27
    The last paragraph of Section III.H.3 reads:
    "Microsoft's obligations under this Section III.H as to 
any new Windows Operating System Product shall be determined based 
on the Microsoft Middleware Products which exist seven months prior 
to the last beta test version (i.e., the one immediately preceding 
the first release candidate) of that Windows Operating System 
Product." Issues:
    1. Again this is tied to Microsoft Middleware Prodcuts, it 
should be replaced by the broader term.

[[Page 28715]]

    2. When a technology "exists" can lead to ambiguity 
given that Microsoft might dictate that technology doesn't exist 
until it determines (at its sole discretion) that it exists. This 
ambiguity is not required.
    The last paragraph of Section III.H.3 should be removed 
completely. Microsoft can introduce new Microsoft Middleware, 
Microsoft Applications, Microsoft Technologies, Microsoft Hardware 
at any arbitrary point in time after the release of an Operating 
System product. In so far as those Microsoft technologies alter 
user's preferences and default system settings, saving and restoring 
those settings sould be supported through an Operating System 
mechanism and user interface that allows for these settings to be 
manipulated.
    Comment III.28
    The first paragraphs of Section III.I reads:
    "I. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs any intellectual property rights owned or licensable 
by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the options or 
alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, 
provided that" The text "shall offer to license" 
requires that licensing be offered, it doesn't require that it 
actually enter into such license agreements. The text should instead 
read:
    I. Microsoft shall offer to license, and shall make its best 
effort to actually license, to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs any 
intellectual property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that 
are required to exercise any of the options or alternatives 
expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, provided that
    Comment III.29
    Section III.I.1 reads:
    "1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of 
monetary consideration, are reasonable and non-
discriminatory;" Allowing for per unit royalties or 
prohibitive up front licensing fees might prevent Microsoft 
competitors from actually being able to participate competitibly in 
the relevant product markets. This Section III.I.1 should read 
instead: "1. all terms, are reasonable and non-discriminatory. 
Royalties or other payments of monetary consideration are explicitly 
forbidden from the temps when the intellectual property is to be 
used only for interoperation with a Microsoft Operating System 
product." For example such a license would not require 
royalties from a server Operating System to interoperate with a 
Microsoft Operating System for Personal Computers, but if the server 
Operating System makes use of the licensed intellectual property to 
interoperate with non-Microsoft Operating Systems for Personal 
Computers, then a royalty might be required by Microsoft.
    Comment III.30
    Section III.I.2 reads:
    "2. the scope of any such license (and the intellectual 
property rights licensed thereunder) need be no broader than is 
necessary to ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP or OEM is able to 
exercise the options or alternatives expressly provided under this 
Final Judgment (e.g., an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's and OEM's option 
to promote Non-Microsoft Middleware shall not confer any rights to 
any Microsoft intellectual property rights infringed by that Non-
Microsoft Middleware);" XXX
    Comment III.31
    Section III.I.3 reads:
    "an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's rights may be 
conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or sublicensing its 
rights under any license granted under this provision;" Not 
allowing the transferring or assignment of these parties rights 
under certain circumstances, for example under an acquisition, is 
inherently a form of discrimination. Given that the licenses are to 
be offered in a non-discriminatory fashion, it is important that 
such licenses once offered be available in the future and that the 
licensing not be restricted to a given period of time. If subsequent 
versions of technology become available, and new licenses are 
developped for that technology, the older licenses to the earlier 
technology should continue to be offered for the earlier verisions 
of the technology.
    Comment III.32
    The paragraphs immediately after Section III.I.5 reads: 
"Beyond the express terms of any license granted by Microsoft 
pursuant to this section, this Final Judgment does not, directly or 
by implication, estoppel or otherwise, confer any rights, licenses, 
covenants or immunities with regard to any Microsoft intellectual 
property to anyone."
    Comment III.33
    Section III.J.2.b reads:
    "that the licensee:
    (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or 
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product,"
    Microsoft shall not unreasonably dispute the licensee's 
assertions with respect to III.J.2.b, any individual member of the 
Technical Committee through direct communication with the 
prospective licensee can make a positive determination about the 
III.J.2.b requirement and inform Microsoft about its determination 
without any further Microsoft argument, dispute or delay about the 
prospective licensee meeting the III.J.2.b requirement (Court 
intervention shall not be required).
    Section III.J.2.b should read:
    (b) has a reasonable business need (as promptly and in a non-
discriminating manner determined by Microsoft or any one individual 
member of the Technical Committee), for the API, Documentation or 
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product
    Comment III.33
    Section III.J.2.b reads:
    "that the licensee:
    (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business" It should instead read: (c) meets reasonable, 
objective and non-discriminatory standards (proposed by Microsoft 
and promptly approved by the Technical Committe in consultation with 
the Plaintiffs) for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, the actual determination of the actual authenticity and 
viability of the business can be made by Microsoft or any one member 
of the Technical Committee after taking into consideration legal 
consultation from the Technical Committee's legal staff
    Comment III.34
    Section J.2.d reads:
    "that the licensee:
    (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program 
using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-
party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure 
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of 
the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to 
proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms 
identified in this paragraph."
    The issues are:
    1. Should be at Microsoft's expense, not the licensee's.
    2. Verification should hot be performed by "third-party 
verification, approved by Microsoft" if such verification is 
required by Microsoft it should be done under staff hired by the 
Technical Committee and at Microsoft's expense and not through 
unknown for profit relationships and agreements between a third 
party and Microsoft. The intent of this section is for "proper 
operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms", 
Microsoft should be satisfied with the Technical Committee staff 
performing these duties unless its goals are other than those 
expressed herein.
    3. The text "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" refers to to a "Microsoft specifications for 
use of the API or interface", these specifications shall be 
made available to the licensee
    Section J.2.d should read:
    (d) agrees to submit, at Microsoft's expense, any computer 
program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to 
the Technical Committe for verification, to test for and ensure 
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications (which 
Microsoft shall make available to the licensee) 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.
    Comment IV.1 Section IV.A.2.a reads:
    "a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and 
all source code, books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda 
and other documents and records in the possession, custody, or 
control of Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any 
matters contained in this Final Judgment."
    This should be expanded to include electronic forms of 
communication in electronic form, not printed form, because it is 
extremely hard to sift through information, such as source code, in 
non-electronic form.
    Section IV.A.2.a should read:
    a. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all 
source code, source code control systems, bug or defect databases, 
design documents, build procedures, binary codes, books, ledgers, 
electronic ledgers, electronic databases, accounts, correspondence, 
memoranda, newsgroups, discussions forums, web sites and other

[[Page 28716]]

documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of 
Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters 
contained in this Final Judgment. Access to electronic forms of 
information shall be provided in electronic form and not in only in 
printed form.
    Comment IV.2
    Section IV.B.2 describes "The TC members shall be experts 
in software design and programming." section IV.B.2.c reads:
    "c. shall perform any other work for Microsoft or any 
competitor of Microsoft for two years after the expiration of the 
term of his or her service on the TC."
    Given that Microsoft competes in almost every software market 
conceivable, it is a strecth to request two years of non-compete 
agreement from the TC member. Two such years of non-compete could be 
provided only if Microsoft provides two such years of salary to the 
TC member with a yearly inflationary bonus adjustment per year.
    Comment IV.3
    Section IV.B.8.iii reads:
    "(iii) obtain reasonable access to any systems or 
equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access;"
    This should reads:
    (iii) obtain reasonable access to any systems, services or 
equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access; services should 
include but not be limited to: authentication, file sharing, 
discussion forums, newsgroups, chat channels, source code control 
systems, bug/defect database systems, design management systems, 
document repositories, web sites, etc.
    Comment IV.4
    Section IV.D.4.d reads:
    "d. No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC 
may be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for 
any purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in 
court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to 
this Final Judgment."
    This is one of the most egregious terms of the settlement. Given 
that the Technical Committee has hardly any actual enforcement 
duties, other than monitoring, and the Technical Committee actually 
being an impartial participant in the actual history of Microsoft's 
interaction with third parties and Microsoft's possible violations 
of settlement terms, it is astonishing that this term mandates that 
the actual work product of the Technical Committee not be admissible 
as evidence of the settlement enforment activities.
    Microsoft deifnitely over-reached by requesting this, this shows 
Microsoft's true intentions (another 5 years without actual 
enforcement plus maybe another 5 of further litigation), Microsoft 
should be forced to accept instead the contrary of this term.
    It is an interesting legal question if any documents related to 
presummed antitrust violations are made the work product of the 
Technical Committee, then by IV.D.4.d and those documents being 
unadmissible, then what other documents could be used to initiate 
Court proceedings by the plaintiffs without any such documents being 
alleged by Microsoft as being derived from the TC's unadmissible 
work. How could the plaintiffs promptly produce equivalent analysis 
without it being under this gag order?
    Section IV.D.4.d must read:
    "d. All work product, findings or recommendations by the 
TC must be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court 
for any purpose, and any member of the TC is herein explicitly 
allowed to testify by deposition, in court or before any other 
tribunal regarding any matter related to this Final Judgment."
    If the Plaintiffs are not willing to mandate this rewritten 
IV.D.4.d they are engaging in blatant dereliction of duty of the 
antitrust enforcement offices and duties that they purport to serve.
    Comment IV.5
    Section IV.D.4.e reads:
    "e. The TC may preserve the anonymity of any third party 
complainant where it deems it appropriate to do so upon the request 
of the Plaintiffs or the third party, or in its discretion." 
It should read instead:
    "e. The TC must preserve the anonymity of any third party 
complainant upon the request of the Plaintiffs or the third party. 
Where the TC deems it appropriate to do so, and it has not ben 
requested, by the Plaintiffs or the third party, the TC in its own 
discretion it may preserve the anonymity of any third party 
complainant."
    Comment V.1
    Section V.A reads:
    "A. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final 
Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is 
entered by the Court."
    The Final Judgement should last longer than five years. The 
actual initial antritrust violations by Microsoft occured more than 
five years ago and we are stiI1 without any form of remedy. The 
legal system works very slowly. By entering this Final Judgement, 
and Microsoft continuing its anticompetitive practices, it would 
probably take more than five years to resolve those further 
complaints. Given that the orignal D.O.J. vs Microsoft settlement 
that related to per computer unit licensing was ambiguous enough 
that it ended up being mostly ignored and full antritrust 
proceedings were required, it wouldn't surprise me if this agreement 
which is even more ambiguous and has many more loopholes means at 
Microsoft's disposal to circumvent its intent would not result in 
many more years of litigation without any real behaviour change on 
Microsoft's part.
    Mandating an expiration only after Microsoft no longer has 
monopoly power in the market of Operating Systems for Personal 
Computers for Intel x86 or x86 compatible systems is more 
appropriate. Court proceedings or the under the parties agreement 
and Court supervision would be required for the settlement to 
expire, Otherwise a period longer than 5 years, at least 12 years 
should be mandated.
    It must be observed how durable has Microsoft's monopoly been 
and that it was initially cemented through antitrust violations for 
which a Final Judgement with no teeth got the industry into its 
current state: 1.
    Since the mid 80s it faced no competition. Through illegal 
competitive behaviour, it foreclose the market to then Digital 
Research's DR-DOS product (an atlernative to Microsoft's 
MSDOS). Microsoft has recently settled a separate antitrus suit by 
the current owner of the DRDOS assets (Caldera). These original 
violations animated the first consent decreed between D.O.J. and 
Microsoft 1995. That consent decree was determined to be ambiguous 
by the appellate Court in its allowance of integration, and a full 
antitrust lititgation ensued.
    2. Even though Microsoft's technology significantly lagged 
behind the technical abilities of the systems (for example it took 
Microsoft 10 years to produce a quasi 32 bit operating system after 
x86 Intel 32 bit capable operating systems became available in the 
market) no other competitors could enter the market because 
Microsoft moved from per-unit licenses to persystem licenses for 
each model of system that the OEM manufactured (and this continued 
to exclude other vendors from the market). 3. The one significant 
threat that Microsoft has faced to its personal computer operating 
system monopoly has been the advent of the Internet with open 
standards and as a means for delivering applications from server 
computers (either through Java or directly as web applications) or 
through middleware based applications that could perform on 
Microsoft Operating System based personal computers or personal 
computers running other operating systems. This one threat has been 
completely erradicated from the market. Microsoft will continue to 
exclude Java as a viable Interact based application delivery 
mechanisms, because this Final Judgement doesn't mandata the 
allowance of interoperability of Sun's Java with Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer (the Top Level Window definition is purposedly 
design to make this impossible). Dereliction of duty now from the 
Plaintiffs would mean that even under the most blatant violations of 
antritrust laws and astonishing findings of fact, that Microsoft 
would escape with a Final Judgement that is too short and very weak 
from many perspectives. 12 years of enforcement seem the minimal 
time for market conditions to actually have another opportunity to 
arise and for actual market change to actually occur.
    Comment V.2
    Section V.B reads:
    "B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has 
found that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and 
systematic violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a 
one-time extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, 
together with such other relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate."
    The Plaintiffs in any enforcement proceeding shall not be 
limited to only one extension of two years. If the Plaintiffs cannot 
request as a remedy to future Microsoft's violations of this 
settlement, then it is not clear if the Court can actually mandate a 
remedy that is not being requested. Additionally, limiting the 
length of the actual extension at this time and as part of this 
settlement seems beyond belief given that any enforcement will 
require the Court participation because there is no actual real 
enforcement (other than monitoring by the Technical Committee with 
its work

[[Page 28717]]

product later bein unadmissible as court evidence and without the TC 
members being allowed as witnesses).
    Section V.B should read:
    B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found 
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for an extension 
of this Final Judgment for up to ten years, together with such other 
relief as the Court may deem appropriate, which is hereby agreed by 
the parties that it is acceptable for it to be of any length as the 
Court deems appropriate.
    Comment VI.1
    Definition VI.A reads;
    "A. "Application Programming Interfaces 
(APIs)" means the interfaces, including any associated 
callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows 
Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating 
System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows 
Operating System Product."
    Issues are:
    API refers to the interfaces that are used not only by Microsoft 
Middleware uses, but any other software uses. APIs are mostly used 
by regular applications, narrowing the definition of APIs to what 
Microsoft Middleware uses is a contorted way to allow even more 
freedoms of circumvention to Microsoft. For example for Microsoft to 
perform anti-competitive practices through undocumented interfaces 
that its applications use, but that Microsoft's Middleware doesn't 
use, thus excluding those APIs (by definition!) from being covered 
by this settlement. Amazingly, this definition proposed to define 
API to mean something other than Application Programmin Interface, 
do you see the word application? It is not Middleware Programming 
Interface! Simply amazing!
    Definition VI.A should be replaced by the definition in the 
Final Judgement entered by Judge Jackson (definition 7.b):
    A. "Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)" means 
the interfaces, service provider interfaces, and protocols that 
enable a hardware device or an application, Middleware, or server 
Operating System to obtain services from (or provide services in 
response to requests from) Platform Software in a Personal Computer 
and to use, benefit from, and rely on the resources, facilities, and 
capabilities of such Platform Software.
    If another definition is adopted, it should be explained why it 
is different from the one proposed.
    Comment VI.2
    Definition VI.B reads:
    "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."
    Issues:
    1. Given that Communication Protocols relevant to this 
settlement (given the proposed changes in other sections) also exist 
between two personal computers, the definition should reflect that.
    2. The set of tasks between the parties in a protocol doesn't 
have to be predefined, there are protocols under which the parties 
actually sent pieces of arbitrary code to each other to perform 
actions that are arbitrary.
    Definition VI.B should read:
    "B. "Communications Protocol" means the set of 
rules for information exchange to accomplish tasks between a Windows 
Operating System Product and another operating system 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."
    Comment VI.3
    Definition VI.J reads:
    "J. "Microsoft Middleware" means software code 
that
    1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating 
System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product; 2.
    is Trademarked;
    3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    4. includes at least the software code that controls most or all 
of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware.
    Software code described as part of, and distributed separately 
to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version of 
that Microsoft Middleware Product. A major version shall be 
identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single digit 
to the right of the decimal point."
    This is a very astonishing definition of Middleware, nowhere 
does it talk about software that provides APIs to other software 
components, which is core to any definition of Middleware. The 
definition of Non-Microsoft Middleware (VI.M) does seem appropriate 
to what Middleware is. Definition 7.q in Judge Jackson's Final 
Judgement should be seen for a reasonable defintion of Middleware:
    "'Middleware" means software that operates, 
directly or through other software, between an Operating System and 
another type of software (such as an application, a server Operating 
System, or a database management system) by offering services via 
APIs or Communications Interfaces to such other software, and could, 
if ported to or interoperable with multiple Operating Systems, 
enable software products written for that Middleware to be run on 
multiple Operating System Products. Examples of Middleware within 
the meaning of this Final Judgment include Internet browsers, e-mail 
client software, multimedia viewing software, Office, and the Java 
Virtual Machine. Examples of software that are not Middleware within 
the meaning of this Final Judgment are disk compression and memory 
management."
    These notions in the VI.J "Microsoft Middleware" 
definition are astonishing:
    "2. is Trademarked;" other than to provide Microsoft 
another escape clause, this term adds absolutely no value. With this 
term as part of the definition, Microsoft can rename some component, 
not use an earlier trademark name for it, and voila! it is no longer 
Microsoft Middleware.
    The notion of what Microsoft Middleware is certainly cannot be 
tied to the version number given to it! Something is what it is 
whatever the name used to refer to it. Something as arbitrary as a 
version number and as easily maleable as a version number certainly 
cannot be criteria to be used to determine what it is. Contract 
writting 101 should certainly tech any lawyers about this. It is 
interesting to pose these questions to the Plaintiffs:
    What is the major version number of Office XP? What is the 
version number of Internet Explorer. NET? What is the version number 
of Outlook Express. NET? What is the version number of Windows XP, 
Windows CE, Windows ME, Winodows 95 OSR2? Widonws 95? Microsoft 
certainly can change interfaces, protocols, APIs, etc in a major, 
minor, service pack, hot fix, or any other packaging of its 
software. The names or version numbers of such software should not 
be used to determine what is contained by them.
    Both of these (VI.J.2 and VI.J last paragrpah) should be removed 
from the definition. The term VI.J.4 seems to be there only for the 
purpose of allowing Microsoft to slice and recombine its software in 
such a way as to ensure that the user interface component be the one 
called the "Microsoft Middleware" and not the components 
that acutally perfrom the traditional Middleware functionality (see 
Jacksons definition above) of providing APIs to other software. It 
is very intereseting that Middleware is mostly not about user 
interfaces but about providing interfaces to other applications, 
applications that felly on the Middleware as a platform. Most 
Midleware doesn't have a user interface, if it has one it is 
incidental.
    The term VI.J.4 should be removed.
    After these adjustments, Defintion VI.J should just be:
    J. "Microsoft Middleware" means software code that
    1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating 
System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product; and
    2. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a 
Microsoft Middleware Product; and
    Comment VI.4
    Definition VI.K reads:
    "K. "Microsoft Middleware Product" means
    1. the functionality provided by Interact Explorer, Microsoft's 
Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
Outlook Express andtheir successors in a Windows Operating System 
Product, and
    2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or 
sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is 
part of any Windows Operating System Product
    a. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software or

[[Page 28718]]

    b. functionality provided by Microsoft software that
    i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any 
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by 
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows 
Operating System Product;
    ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product: and iii. is Trademarked.
    Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part 
of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, 
or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a 
Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall 
be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware 
Product."
    The first issue with this definition is, what is the connection 
between VL.K.2 and the presumably subordinate VI.K.2.a and VI.K.2.b? 
The sentence under VI.K.2 seems incomplete, it should end in 
something like:
    "* * * and that is part of any Windows Operating 
System Product, and is either:" Other issues are:
    1. Throughout the trial Microsoft and depositions (but not 
before litigation was brought into action) would not budge on its 
pretense incomprehension of what an Internet Browser is. They would 
only talk about browsing technologies but would react stupified to 
the notion of Integer Browsers, particularly their own, when they 
were referred to as "the browser product." It is amusing 
and without any sign of legal thouroughness that the Plaintiffs have 
come to agree with Microsoft to a definition that uses the term 
"Internet browser" without actually providing a 
definition for such a term anywhere in the proposed Final Judgement. 
Not even what a Internet Browser is being agreed amongst the parties 
in the dereliction of duty that this document embodies.
    2. Given that this section includes other disputed terms such as 
Internet Explorer, it sould seem to be important to include precise 
definitions about what these actual terms mean. Maybe when the 
Plaintiffs try to do this together with Microsoft they will realize 
that only contorted definitions such as the ones for API, Microsoft 
Middleware, Microsoft Middleware Product, etc. are arrived at.
    3. Again software can be or stop from being a Microsoft 
Middleware Product depending on whether it is trademarked or not 
(which to no ones surprise is another contorted and unnatural 
definition by itself).
    4. VI.K.2.b.i refers to "distributed separately by 
Microsoft from a Windows Operating System Product", that term 
should be precisely defined to mean what it seems to mean, because 
Microsoft having argued in court that a sandwich is part of Windows 
if they soley dictate so, then they surely would say that any code 
"is distributed as part of a Windows Operating System" 
even if the code is sent to the end user m a CD-ROM inside a 
sandwich not included in the Windows box, or more complexily and 
seriously, if it is sent to the user's system through a the Windows 
update process.
    5. VI.K.2 seems to require that the functionality be "part 
of any Windows Operating System Product" but immediately and 
sub-ordinated to that clause it also says VI.K.2.b.i 
"distributed separately by Microsoft from a Windows Operating 
System Product" which seems to contradict the pre-requisite 
governing condition (it has to be both part of and not part of?.), 
that would be by necessity the empty set, because something cannot 
be both part of something and not part of something; thus redering 
the whole contorted VI.K definition sense-less.
    06. The final paragraph on VI.K states that:
    "Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as 
being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service 
pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a 
version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 
5.5), shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware 
Product."
    as some form of saving grace for the grotesquely constructed 
prior definition. Obviously, since the litigation started, Microsoft 
has described everything as part of Windows, so one should not wait 
standing for Microsoft to ever again market anything in their 
anticompetitive campaigns as not being part of Windows.
    Definition VI.K should be replaced by:
    "K. "Microsoft Middleware Product" means
    1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's 
Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System 
Product, and
    2. any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold 
by Microsoft before, on, or after the entry of this Final Judgment 
and that is later made part of any Windows Operating System Product, 
this shold include but not be limited to: Internet browsers, email 
client software, networked audio/video client software, instant 
messaging software; or
    3. functionality provided by Microsoft software that
    i. is, or at any time preceding the commercial release of any 
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by 
Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows 
Operating System Product; or
    ii. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets 
as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service 
pack. upgrade, or bug fix for Interact Explorer), or that is a 
version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 
5.5), shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware 
Product."
    Additionally, reasonable definitions of what these mean should 
be included as separate definitions: "Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows 
Operating System Product"
    Comment VI.5
    The word product should be replaced by technology in definition 
VI.M because not all middleware is made available in a product form, 
some of it might be made freely available or under conditions or 
packaging that don't relate directly to it being a product:
    "M. "Non-Microsoft Middleware" means a non-
Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System 
Product that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through 
published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable 
with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for 
applications that rely in whole or in part on the functionality 
supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that 
non-Microsoft Operating System."
    It shold read:
    "M. "Non-Microsoft Middleware" means a non-
Microsoft software technology running on a Windows Operating System 
Product that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through 
published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable 
with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for 
applications that rely in whole or in part on the functionality 
supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that 
non-Microsoft Operating System."
    Comment VI.6
    The requirement under VI.N.ii that:
    "and (ii) of which at least one million copies were 
distributed in the United States within the previous year."
    Seems excessive, a more reasonable number of one hundred 
thousand copies is more appropriate because the benefits of the 
settlement can benefit nascent technologies and not just more 
established ones.
    Comment VI.7
    The definition under VI.O of OEM is self centered, to be an OEM, 
the OEM has to be a licensee of a Windows Operating System Product. 
How do new OEMs come to be if Microsoft refused to license its 
products directly or uses intermediaries not under its ownership 
control but under agreement control to do actual sublicensing? The 
definition of an OEM should be independent of whether they at any 
given point in time they have a direct license from Microsoft 
(instead of purchasing the product in the channel like smaller OEMs 
do). The definition of Covered OEM already takes care of them being 
licensees.
    "O. "OEM" means an original equipment 
manufacturer of Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows 
Operating System Product."
    Should be:
    O. "OEM" means an original equipment manufacturer of 
Personal Computers.
    Comment VI.8
    Definition VI.Q reads:
    "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."
    The only concern here is if:
    television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, 
telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are constructed 
from Intel x86 or x86 compatible

[[Page 28719]]

processors and Microsoft offers a version Windows for them that 
allows any software designed for Personal Computers to work on those 
systems, then what those products would be are:
    x86 Personal Computer based handheld personal computers; or
    x86 Personal Computer based personal digital assistants; or
    x86 Personal Computer based personal game consoles; etc
    For example today Microsoft offers a fully functional Personal 
Computer as its game console, the Microsoft Xbox. If Microsoft were 
to offer Windows XP for that system, it would not only be a game 
console but also a fully function Personal Computer. Under those 
circumstances it should not be excluded from the definition.
    Comment VI.9
    Defintion VI.R reads:
    "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." Without actual evidence about the actual size of the 
MSDN subscription base, it seems safer to rewrite this. Addtionally 
because of naming issues, the term "beta test version" 
should be expandded into its meaning:
    "R. "Timely Manner" means at the time 
Microsoft first releases a release version of a Windows Operating 
System Product through its MSDN developper program solely for the 
purpose of developper testing and not intended for end user use for 
reasons other than for testing. If Microsoft plans multiple such 
test releases, then Timely Manner shall means the release time of a 
test release that is at least one year away from the product's final 
availabilty to OEMs for pre-installation or for consumer retail 
purchase, whichever is earlier."
    Comment VI.10
    Defintion VI.S reads:
    "S. "Top-Level Window" means a window 
displayed by a Windows Operating System Product that (a) has its own 
window controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and 
maximize, (b) can contain sub-windows, and (c) contains user 
interface elements under the control of at least one independent 
process."
    This definition is purposedly constructed to prevent:
    1. An alternative Jave Virtual Machine (for example from Sun 
Microsystems) from being invoked when Java Applets are invoked 
through a web page because the window controls are the window 
controls of the Internet Browser and the Java Applet executes within 
the same window. By Microsoft using this defitintion to condition 
where it allows non-Microsoft Middleware to be invoked it controls 
the most important way for Java application execution (i.e. under a 
more complex web based application). Thus Microsoft having killed 
Netscape Navigator's viability proceeds to deny Java the remaining 
vehicle that it could have enjoyed under this settlement, i.e. under 
Interact Explorer. Of course the Plaintiffs do nothing other than 
acquesce under this settlement either because of dereliction of duty 
or blatant technical misunderstanding of the issues involved.
    2. For example, the "live chart" stock quotes 
provided (through Java applets) by www.quote.com or the Chess 
application provided (Java applet) by www.chessclub at
    http://www.chessclub.com/interface/java.html
    http://queen.chessclub.com/sji/index.html
    Would simply continue to run under Microsoft Java Virtual 
Machine and not under Sun's Java Virtual Machine when installed on 
the same system and with all the provisions of the settlement fully 
implement (and without any Microsoft violation of the terms 
whatsoever).
    Thus Microsoft gets to reap the fruits of its anti-competitive 
camapaign without having actually conceeded anything of substance 
for non-Microsoft Middleware as it relates to Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer. The same will occur with network video and audio formats 
because Microsoft will make its players not start on a Top Level 
Window thus taking control of audio and video formats of Real 
Networks players even when the end user has choosen otherwise under 
the provisions of this agreement.
    The notion of Top Level Window must be extricated from the 
settlement and Microsoft should allow invocation of ActiveX based 
components of the non-Microsoft Middleware under all circumstances, 
in a manner similar under which today third party software is 
invoked under a non Top Level Window and displayed within the 
Internet Explorer window without a problem (for example see how 
Adobe's Acrobat Reader is displayed under a non-Top Level Window). 
Microsoft has done already all the technical work in this area, an 
it is now only putting contractual road blocks to all these natural 
forms of invocation of non-Microsoft Middleware.
    Comment VI.10
    Definition VI.T reads:
    "T. "Trademarked" means distributed in 
commerce and identified as distributed by a name other than 
Microsoft?? or Windows?? that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark 
or service mark by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such 
as ?? or ??, in connection with a product distributed in the United 
States; (ii) filing an application for trademark protection for the 
name in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; or (iii) 
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?? or Windows?? 
trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms shall not be 
Trademarked as that term is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft 
hereby disclaims any trademark rights in such descriptive or generic 
terms apart from the Microsoft?? or Windows?? trademarks, and hereby 
abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the future."
    The main issue throughout this proposed settlement with respect 
ot Trademarks is that software is what it is irrespective of what it 
is called. The definitions of Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Middleware Product where conditioned with them being trademarked 
(under this definition) as a means to provide Microsoft and escape 
clause to make the no longer Microsoft Middleware (and Microsoft 
Middleware Products). That concept should completely go away. If it 
doesn't then the defintion of Trademarked shold be exactly the legal 
defintion understood under the law and not this one.
    Comment VI.11
    Defitions VI.U reads:
    "U. "Windows Operating System Product" means 
the software code (as opposed to source cede) 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 list must also include Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows SE, 
Windows ME (collectively known as Windows 9x) and Windows NT 4,0 and 
all their service releases. The current installed base is mostly 
made out of these products. By purposedly excluding them Microsoft 
and the Plaintiffs allow Microsoft to continue to prevent non-
Microsoft Middleware from fairly competing in the broad installed 
base and forces competition to only occur under Microsoft's 
controlled evolution of the market. It does so by not allowing 
competition from the broad installed base by not affording the 
benefits of the settlement to that gigantic installed base (i.e. all 
the versions of Windows 9x).



MTC-00029686

P.O. Box 369
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 express my opinion in regards to 
Microsoft. I fully support the settlement that was reached in 
November. In my opinion, the litigation that has continued for the 
last three yearn is a waste of precious resources that should be 
focused on more important issues. I am chagrinned that many state 
Attorneys General have continued suing Microsoft. I sincerely hope 
there, will be no further action against Microsoft at the federal 
level.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to 
carry out all provisions of this agreement, Under this agreement, 
Microsoft remains together as a company, while following procedures; 
that will make it easier for companies to compete. Microsoft has 
agreed to disclose information about certain internal interlaces in 
Windows;. Furthermore, Microsoft agreed to, disclose any protocols 
implemented in Windows" operating system products.
    This settlement will benefit the economy and the technology 
industry as a whole. Please support this settlement so this dispute, 
can finally be resolved. Thank you for hearing my opinion.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029687

January 24, 2002

[[Page 28720]]

Attention: Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice.
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Deal Ms. Hesse
    Though I am a current member of the Kansas ago Board of 
Education, I am writing this letter personally and not as a 
representative of the Kansas State Board of Education. Before you is 
a fair proposal for settlement of Microsoft case. In a sincere 
a??empt to close the door on a highly publicized legal embattlement, 
Microsoft offers to reveal technical information to comp??titors, 
enabling other companios to write software that actually works with 
Microsoft's operating products. Microsoft even offers, at its own 
expense, a failsafe in the form of an impartial review board which 
will have clearance to every facel of Microsoft's business dealings. 
This means software customers will have the ability to smoothly 
access competing software products on the same desktop, just like 
they are part of Microsoft Office.
    Though Microsoft may surely have hoped for a solid win in this 
case, Bill Gates himsel recently recognized that accepting the 
strict rules and regulations imposed by the settlement is "the 
right thing to do", benefiting the consumer, the tech sector 
and the economy. We may hate to admit it, but Gates is right again. 
Settlement is the right thing to do. Thank you for your 
consideration of my opinions.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Steve Abrams



MTC-00029688

January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like to express my appreciation to the Justice 
Department for allowing we as Americans to comment on the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I am a part of the tech industry and am in favor of 
the settlement in its current form.
    I would like to express how happy I am with Microsoft products. 
Microsoft ha3 changed the way Americans do business. I think most 
Americans believe that the terms and conditions of the settlement 
are decent and just, and they are right. The settlement covers all 
sorts of parts of Microsoft's operation, from business practices to 
design changes.
    Please use your power to end this case in an expeditious manner. 
It will benefit the country and the IT industry if you do so.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Martin
    Co: Representative Tammy Baldwin



MTC-00029689

Jim Atkins
5569 Pinebrook Lane
Winston Salem, NC 27105
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am amongst those who believe that the Microsoft antitrust case 
should have never gone to trial. Nevertheless 1 would like you to 
support the settlement that was achieved in this case. Continuation 
of this case would be harm fid to Microsoft, and needlessly cost the 
Justice Department money in a time of a dwindling government 
surplus.
    Justice Department officials have approved and agreed to the 
settlement in this case. The settlement will make it easier for non-
Microsoft software to be installed on Microsoft platforms, giving 
competitors a better opportunity to offer their products to the 
public. However for some opponents of the settlement this is not 
adequate. It must be kept in mind that special interests will 
pressure officials to have this case re-opened.
    I appreciate you taking the time to review my views on this 
issue. Once again I would like to stress to you my belief that this 
cage has undoubtedly become protracted and should be terminated. 
Please back the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Atkins
    cc: Representative Mel Watt



MTC-00029690

Michael DiBello
15 Orchard St.
Syosset, NY 11791-2712
January 26. 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel that the settlement made between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is reasonable and that the litigation against 
Microsoft needs to be brought to an end. The money and time that has 
been spent on this suit doesn't seem to be worth what will be gained 
if this continues. The terms of the settlement, if finalized, will 
open up competition to other companies, which will in turn benefit 
the consumer, Not only will there be more choice but also hopefully 
there will also be more reasonable prices. Because of the terms of 
the settlement, Microsoft is going to have to make Windows internal 
code available to other companies so they can design their software 
to be compatible. Microsoft will be reimbursed for this, which is 
fair for all sides involved.
    Overall I feel that the settlement should stand the way it is 
and that any further litigation against Microsoft would prove to be 
wasteful. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my 
opinions.
    Sincerely,
    Michael DiBello



MTC-00029691

January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft.
    The Department of Justice was absolutely wrong in wanting to 
slice Microsoft into separate parts. Three years have produced 
public resentment and gravely hurt the computing Industry, all for 
the benefit of those who won't ever be able to compete with 
Microsoft. The settlement Microsoft agreed to with the federal 
government must go forward. It is more than generous, and is 
obviously better than forcing Microsoft back into court, where the 
only winners are the attorneys representing both sides of this case.
    Microsoft concedes to give up more than enough to promote far 
more competition among the computer makers and software developers 
who want a more level playing field. Agreeing to open Windows for 
further application development, Windows and non-Windows alike, will 
produce far more innovations than ever before, and will show the 
consumer that they are not at the whim of this industry giant, 
creating more individually-based options and configurations.
    I urge the Department of Justice to see to it that Microsoft is 
given unprejudiced consideration by allowing them to return to 
business NOW. Do not continue to waste the incredible innovation and 
efforts of Microsoft, by choking them in more court proceedings. 
They have been the most industrious and prolific business since that 
of Ford Motors. The ramifications are far reaching, for the better 
good, by supporting the position of this settlement with Microsoft.



MTC-00029692

Mr. Todd Kangas
21800 Dempsey Rd
Leaven worth, KS 66048
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
C/O Renata Hesse
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
January 38, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to share a few thoughts of mine about the Microsoft 
case that you are currently reviewing as pan of the public comment 
period for the suit. Microsoft and Bill Gates have paid their 
penance. Throughout this case, Microsoft has been portrayed as an 
evil corporate citizen, but in my opinion this accusation does not 
stand up to reality.
    In addition to Microsoft's corporate giving, Bill Gates has 
established the largest charitable foundation in the world. This 
foundation is making significant progress by donating hundreds of 
millions of dollars every year to assist in feeding the hungry in 
third world countries, preventing diseases, and educating youth in 
America. Lets put an end to this lawsuit and allow the success of 
Bill Gates and other high-tech entrepreneurs continue to, not only 
boost the economy of our country, but to aid to the underprivileged 
worldwide through charitable giving.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Kangas



MTC-00029693

Kenneth R. Sone
195 N Harbor Drive Apt. 5307
Chicago, IL 60601
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 28721]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to give my feelings on the settlement 
reached last year between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
believe the settlement is fair to both sides and should continue t6 
be supported by the federal government.
    The settement is exlensive aggressive, and covers all the issues 
that were m dispute. Microsoft has agreed to many concessions for 
the ??ake of wrapping up this suit and moving forward One example is 
Microsoft agreeing to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows" 
operating system products. This is a first for an antitrust 
settlement and reveals the strength of the agreement on the 
government's part.
    I believe settling this case and ending the litigation can only 
help the economy during this difficult period. It will bring some 
certainty to the computer industry and lessen the uncertainty about 
where the litigation may he heading I commend your office for the 
efforts so far and hope your support for the settlement remains 
strong.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029694

FAX
DATE: January 28, 2002
TIME: 9:00 AM
ATTENTION: Attorney General John Ashcroft
COMPANY: US Department of Justice
FAX NUMBER: (202) 307-1454
FROM: Glenn R. Hasman
SUBJECT: Microsoft
NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (including this cover sheet)
8797 Treetop Trail
Broadview Heights, OH 44147
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give my approval to the ending of the antitrust case 
brought against Microsoft. In my opinion, it has gone on far too 
long and we need to get back to business. We talk about the economic 
downturn but keep the one company that could probably pull us out of 
it, tied up in litigation.
    From what I understand of the agreement, Microsoft has been more 
than fair in trying to settle this case. Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that go far beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the original case; Microsoft has agreed to 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs. Microsoft has further 
agreed to design future versions of Windows with a mechanism to make 
it easier to promote non-Microsoft software.
    It is in the best interests of America, and the world, if we put 
this case behind us and get back to business. Please give your 
support to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn R. Hasman



MTC-00029695

1-28-02
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Please approve the microsoft settlement.
Harry Westenberg
13008 W. Willow Creek
Huntley, IL
60142



MTC-00029696

PO Box 135
Monterey, MA 01245
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal 
opinion about the government's role in Microsoft's freedom to 
innovate The United States Department of Justice and Microsoft 
reached an agreement at the beginning of this past November and that 
is where the litigation should end. The settlement was fair; 
allowing Microsoft to continue doing business while allowing 
competitors to sue Microsoft if they do not think the company is 
complying with the agreement.
    I believe no more litigation should be enacted at the federal 
level. With a reasonable settlement already reached, further action 
by our government would only waste more time and money. !n this time 
of economic recession, these resources could be used in a much more 
productive manner In these trying times, we need to support our 
homeland companies and allow them to continue providing high quality 
products to the marketplace both nationally and internationally. 
This settlement allows our companies to actually return to the 
success that the IT industry enjoyed four years ago. Microsoft will 
now be making future versions of Windows that will include a way to 
greatly simplify the process of adding arid removing non-Microsoft 
programs from the Windows operating system.
    In a battle that already has been fought and won, I believe it 
would be in our best interest not to continue suing Microsoft at the 
federal level Let us get our economy back on track and start 
supporting products and companies that me made in the USA. Thank you 
for you time.
    Sincerely,
    J.T. Buchar



MTC-00029697

3312 Zimmer Road
Williamston, MI 48895
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was quite pleased to learn that the federal government and 
Microsoft reached a settlement in their three-year anti-trust 
lawsuit. I am hopeful that this settlement will become final in the 
near future so the negative effects that is has had will cease, and 
the technology industry can see a resurgence.
    This will be made possible by the various concessions that 
Microsoft made in order to settle this dispute. A three person 
technical committee will oversee Microsoft's business operations 
from this point forward, and any company that has a complaint of 
anti-competitive behavior against Microsoft will be able to be heard 
immediately. Competition will increase, and consumers will have more 
choices in the marketplace. I see no reason to pursue this matter 
beyond this point. I want to thank you for your decision to stop 
this litigation. I am certain it will have positive effects on the 
industry as well as the whole economy, and I look forward the 
settlement becoming final in the weeks ahead.
    Sincerely,
    Rudy Key



MTC-00029698

6402 Dolphin Shores Drive
Panama City Beach, FL 32407-5474
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Three years ago when Microsoft was first brought to trial, my 
fear was that the company wouldbe split up and the American 
technology industry would begin to suffer. Now, a settlement hasbeen 
proposed that would allow Microsoft to remain whole, and I believe 
that would be in thebest interest of the consumer for the Justice 
Department to approve the settlement and move on.I do support limits 
on Microsoft's conduct to safeguard our antitrust laws, but I think 
theserestrictions are a bit harsh. Microsoft agreed to terms and 
conditions in the settlement that extendto procedures and 
technologies that were not found to be unlawful by the Court of 
Appeals.Microsoft has agreed, among other things, to disclose source 
code and interfaces from theWindows operating system to its 
competitors for their use in developing Windows-compatiblesoftware. 
Microsoft has also agreed to license the Windows operating system to 
twenty of thelargest computer makers at the same price. In the 
interest of wrapping up the case, Microsoftagreed to these and more 
terms, and I believe that, regardless of the harshness of 
certainobligations, it is better to settle now and let things get 
back to normal than to continue litigationand risk further economic 
damage.
    This has gone on long enough, and it is time to move on. 
Microsoft has made the necessarychanges to prevent further antitrust 
violations, and I do not believe further litigation is 
eithernecessary or constructive. I ask you to endorse the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeannie Fitzsimmons
    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00029701

ARTHUR F. HARDEN
1389 OUTLOOK DRIVE WEST
MOUNTAINSIDE, NEW JERBEY 07092
Tel.& FAX # 908-233-7737
DOJ
ATT. Ms. RENATA B. HESSE
202-307-1454,

[[Page 28722]]

    GENTLEMEN:
    I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE MICROSOFT LAWSUIT.
    AETHUR F. HARDEN
    JANUARY 26, 2002



MTC-00029702

Rhonda Green
11920 Brown Road
Thayer, KS 66776
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Attn: Renata Hesse
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20330
    Dear Ms-Hesse;
    As the parents of two children in a small, rural Kansas school, 
I was excited to hear about theprospects of Microsoft donating 
millions of dollars worth of computer systems and learningprograms 
to schools like the ones my children attend.I have seen first hand 
the value of computers in advancing the education, of my children 
and Ifirmly believe that, if accepted, this settlement could prove 
to be very beneficial to the educationof America's children.
    The government has wasted enough taxpayer dollars pursuing a 
problem that never existed. It ismy hope that this fair settlement, 
which has levied steep and taxing financial burdens onMicrosoft, 
will end soon.
    Sincerely,
    Rhonda Green



MTC-00029703

January. 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street Northwest
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to you to express my feelings regarding the lawsuit 
filed against Microsoft by JanetReno. I understand that the Bush 
administration has proposed a settlement that has been agreedto by 
Microsoft and several of the states involved in the lawsuit.
    I want to add my voice to those who believe it is time m put 
this lawsuit to bed. It is drainingvaluable resources from 
government coffers and unnecessarily burdening one of 
America'sleading technology companies. I urge you to approve the 
settlement proposed by the Bushadministration.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Floyd Powers
    Retired Neosho County Employee
    5435 Highway 47
    Thayer, KS 66776



MTC-00029704

745 Norman Drive
North Bellmore, NY 11710
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter in support of Microsoft. As a 
businessman, I believe there is no place forGovernment in free 
enterprise. I have a lot of respect for Microsoft and saw the 
economy flourishas Microsoft grew. It's no coincidence that the 
technology, sector, technical stocks andemployment numbers are down 
while this antitrust case is going on. While it may not be thecause, 
it sure is the contributor.
    Microsoft agreed that if a third party's exercise of any options 
provided by the settlement wouldinfringe on the rights of any 
Microsoft intellectual property, they will provide the third party 
witha license to the necessary, intellectual property on reasonable 
terms. That seems more than fair tome. Microsoft agreed to provide 
computers in the school, but all the states rejected it since 
itwould infringe on Apple's ability to continue providing computers 
in the school. Here in NassauCounty, we are in desperate need of IBM 
compatible computer's, especially since we use oldtechnology, like a 
microfiche. It's a shame we can't access any.
    It's obvious to me that the competition and the states are only 
pursuing litigation because theywant "a piece of the 
action." If the consumer likes the products of a company 
"a", and thecompany "a" gains a large market 
share, it's not fair for other companies to sue company 
"a" justbecause consumers like their product. Your help 
in resolving this mailer is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Stuart Muchnick



MTC-00029705

GBG STRATEGIES, INC.
100 FANEUIL HALL MARKETPLACE
BOSTON, MA 02109
Leo T. Goodrich
President
January 25, 2001
    I am writing to have my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the UnitedStates Department of Justice entered 
Into the record in accordance with the Tunny Actsrequirement of 
public comment on such settlements.
    I think the settlement plan is a good one, and one that reaches 
the necessary balance betweenantitrust enforcement and the need for 
as competitive a software market as the U.S. economy canhave. 
Consumers benefit from a competitive market in ways that; the kind 
of regulationspreviously argued in this case would nullify. Whereas 
a free and competitive market will drivedown Dries and hasten the 
pace of innovation, a heavily regulated market, or a software 
marketIncluding a cawed-up Microsoft would slow the pace of 
Innovation and allow companies to siton their hands and let prices 
gradually rise.
    Consumers deserve the best high tech market available to them, 
and the best high tech market isthe one that innovates. The 
Innovates of the last decade were primarily responsible for 
thecreation of Jobs, Investment, and wealth at rates never before 
witnessed In any economyanywhere. The success of the 
"New" Economy In the 1990s was not a boomlet, in my 
view, but aharbinger of flings to come In the future, if the 
government will allow consumers andentrepreneurs to successfully 
guide the market toward higher levels of competition andInnovation.
    I hope my thoughts can be entered into the record and also hope 
the court fit to approve thesettlement proposal. It is the best way 
for the economy to start to put this recession behind it andbegin to 
build for the future.
    Sincerely,
    Leo T. Goodrich



MTC-00029706

    NEWTON REAL ESTATE RESOURCE GROUP
    Matthew D, Adams
    January 25, 2001
    I am writing to have my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice 
entered into the record in accordance with the Tunny Act's 
requirement of public comment on such settlers.
    I think the settlement plan is a good one, and one that reaches 
the necessary balance between antitrust enforcement and the need for 
as competitive a software market as the U.S. economy can have. 
Consumers benefit from a competitive market in ways that the kind of 
regulations previously argued in this ease would nullify. Whereas a 
free and competitive market will drive down prices arid hasten the 
pace of innovation, a heavily regulated market, or a software market 
including a carved-up Microsoft would slow the pace of innovation 
and allow companies to sit on their hands and let prices gradually 
rise.
    Consumers deserve the best high tech market available to them, 
and the best high tech market is the one that innovates. The in 
innovations of the last decade were primarily responsible for the 
creation of jobs, investment, and wealth at rates never before 
witnessed in any economy anywhere. The success of the 
"New" Economy in the 1990s was not a boomlet, in my 
view, but a harbinger of things to come in the future, if the 
government will allow consumers and entrepreneurs to successfully 
guide the market toward higher levels of competition and innovation.
    I hope my thoughts can be entered into the record and also hope 
the court sees fit to approve the settlement proposal. It is the 
best way for the economy to start to put this behind it and begin to 
build for the future.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew D. Adams



MTC-00029707

7831 El Pastel Drive
Dallas, TX 75248
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This issue has been 
dragging on for entirely to long now and I feel that the current 
settlement before the DOJ is fair and just. I would like to see the 
government accept it. Many people think that Microsoft has gotten 
off easy, in fact they have not. In order to put the issue behind 
them Microsoft has agreed to many concessions. Microsoft has agreed 
to give computer makers the flexibility to install and promote any 
software that they see fit.

[[Page 28723]]

Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into any agreement that would 
obligate any computer maker to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft 
software. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its products at a 
uniform price to computer makers no matter how much that computer 
maker uses Microsoft products.
    What we need to remember is that Microsoft products are very 
affordable and offer many advantages over other products, if one 
desired, they could purchase another operating system ie; Linux 
etc., but the fact is most people choose Microsoft Windows over 
others. With the economy stalling, we need to move forward not 
backward, many people have spent large amounts of time and money to 
be trained on Microsoft products, lets not forget them.
    Sincerely,
    Dameon Rustin
    co: Representative Richard Armey



MTC-00029708

Brad D. Houghtaling
230 Wellington Road
Syracuse, NY 13214-2226
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N-W
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am violently opposed to the antitrust lawsuit against the 
Microsoft Corporation, I personally feel that the suit should be 
dropped, and Microsoft left alone. This case defies the very ideal 
of free enterprise upon which this nation has been built, and this 
case does nothing but damage the entrepreneurial spirit that has 
heretofore been celebrated in this nation.
    I understand that Microsoft has agreed to the settlement that 
has been reached in this case because it would simply like to see 
this litigation end. While I do not agree that Microsoft should have 
to settle I understand their desire to see the end of this lawsuit. 
The terms of the settlement, while a little harsh, are not overly 
objectionable. Microsoft has agreed to design all future versions of 
its Windows operating system to be compatible with the products of 
its competitors, along these same lines Microsoft will disclose 
certain segments of source code to its competitors enabling them to 
design products that work within Windows, it is this term that I 
find most objectionable. I believe that the parties trying to 
perpetuate this litigation are seeing only their own political ends 
rather than a fair solution to this dispute.
    Please ensure the passage of this settlement. American business 
needs 3,our support. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Houghtaling



MTC-00029709

808 Beazer Lane
Antioch, TN 37013
January. 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am of the opinion that the settlement that has recently been 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice is fair and 
reasonable, and I would like to see it implemented as soon as 
possible.
    The only reason why I do support this settlement is because it 
brings an end to the ludicrous litigation against Microsoft. The 
governments, both stale and federal, are legally pursuing Microsoft 
for one reason and one reason only, for the cash. It is ironic that 
they have wasted millions of dollars taking Microsoft to court, and 
do not have much to show in return. The economy is bad enough; we do 
not need our tax dollars going towards the prosecution of a company 
that has been so beneficial to the American economy. I hope that the 
ongoing technical oversight committee, which is a result of the 
settlement and will monitor Microsoft's compliance with that 
settlement, will satisfy the government and all other anti-Microsoft 
entities. A settlement has been reached, we must now put this issue 
behind us and move on to more pressing issues. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Beck



MTC-00029710

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
1005 Boylston Street
P.O. Box 610259
Newton, MA 02461-0259
Thomas P. Godino
January 25, 2001
    I am writing to have my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice 
entered into the record in accordance with the Tunny Act's 
requirement of public comment on such settlements.
    I think the settlement plan is a good one, and one that reaches 
the necessary balance between antitrust enforcement and the need for 
as competitive a software market as the U.S. economy can have, 
Consumers benefit from a competitive market in ways that the kind of 
regulations previously argued in this case would nullify. Whereas a 
free and competitive market will drive down prices and hasten the 
pace of innovation, a heavily regulated market, or a software market 
including a carved-up Microsoft would slow the pace of innovation 
and allow companies to sit on their hands and let prices gradually 
rise.
    Consumers deserve the best high tech market available to them, 
and the best high tech market is the one that innovate. The 
innovations of the last decade were primarily responsible for the 
creation of jobs, investment, and wealth at rates never before 
witnessed in any economy anywhere. The success of the 
"New" Economy in the 1990s was not a boomlet, in my 
view, but a harbinger of things to come in the future, if the 
government wilt allow consumers and entrepreneurs to successfully 
guide the market toward higher levels of competition and innovation 
I hope my thoughts can be entered into the record and also hope the 
court sees fit to approve the settlement proposal. It is the best 
way for the economy to start to put this recession behind it and 
begin to build for the future.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas P. Godino



MTC-00029711

January 24, 2001
    I am writing to have my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the United States Department of Justice 
entered into the record in accordance with the Tunny Act's 
requirement of public comment on such settlements.
    I think the settlement plan is a good one, and one that reaches 
the necessary balance between antitrust enforcement and the need for 
as competitive a software market as the U.S. economy can have. 
Consumers benefit from a competitive market in ways that the kind of 
regulations previously argued in this case would nullify. Whereas a 
flee and competitive market will drive down prices and hasten the 
pace of innovation, a heavily regulated market, or a software market 
including a carved-up Microsoft would flow the pace of innovation 
and allow companies to sit on their hands and let prices gradually 
rise.
    Consumers deserve the best high tech market available to them, 
and the best high tech market is the one that innovates. The 
innovations of the last decade were primarily responsible for the 
creation of jobs, investment, and wealth at rates never before 
witnessed in arty economy anywhere. The success of the 
"New" Economy in the 1990s was not a boomlet, in my 
view, but a harbinger of things to come in the future, if the 
government will allow consumers and entrepreneurs to successfully 
guide the market toward higher levels of competition and innovation.
    I hope my thoughts can be entered into the record and also hope 
the court sees fit to approve the settlement proposal. It is the 
best way far the economy to start to put this recession behind it 
and begin to build for the future.
    Sincerely,
    James J. Campbell



MTC-00029712

VONDA WIEDMBR
ROUTE 1, Box 545
MADISON, KS 66860
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
601 "D" St., NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    All too often in our country it seems our government has taken 
aim at a successful company under the auspices of protecting the 
American people. Unfortunately, it is the government's actions that 
are truly hurting Americans. When the Department of Justice first 
began its pursuit of Microsoft it claimed it was doing so to protect 
consumers from some harm created by Microsoft. The reality could not 
be further from the truth.
    The facts are simple really. Microsoft leads its industry 
because it has developed ways to meet consumers needs better then 
its competition. This is the American way! Most successful companies 
strive to be the very best in their field and compete hard with

[[Page 28724]]

others in their industry. Certainly Microsoft is no exception. 
Punishing them for being the best is not appropriate. The United 
States government and the Microsoft's competitors have yet to 
provide proof of how consumers have been harmed by Microsoft. 
However, as a taxpayer T can see where I have been harmed Countless 
tax dollars have been spent in the pursuit of this case at o time 
when our economy is constricting. I view this a real example of 
harm.
    Please accept the settlement offer.
    Sincerely,
    Vonda Wiedmer



MTC-00029713

Matthew Alfieri
7 Northfield Gate
Pittsford, NY 14534
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record as 
being a staunch supporter of the proposed agreement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The litigation 
between these two has gone on for long enough, more than three years 
actually. It is time to put this issue to rest and move on.
    The settlement actually goes further than Microsoft would have 
liked, but they decided to settle because it was in the best 
interests of the IT industry and the American economy. The 
settlement mandates that Microsoft make future versions of the 
Window, operating system to include a feature that makes it much 
easier for computer makers and consumers to remove Microsoft 
software programs from Windows and then replace it with non-
Microsoft software. This completely opens the industry up to much 
more competition, and the companies producing the competing software 
will need to deliver a "Grade A" product to the market, 
or people will simply not buy it.
    Everything is now in place for a stronger IT industry and a 
healthier economy. I support this settlement because it looks out 
for everyone's best interests. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Alfieri



MTC-00029714

January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., NVV
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on the proposed 
settlement before you in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    As a Kirkwood community college computer instructor, I have the 
opportunity to teach the Microsoft Office suite to my students. I 
have seen first-hand the advances Microsoft has made in the software 
industry. Everyday, my students learn more about how to harness 
technology and use it to their advantage to work more efficiently.
    Microsoft changed the way America, and the world for that 
matter, does business. As I understand it, most of the world's 
computer users work on Microsoft's Windows software. That is truly 
an amazing accomplishment. Success on that scale only comes when a 
company continues to produce an outstanding product year in and year 
out.
    I urge you to accept the settlement before you on behalf of all 
taxpayers. Too much time and too many resources have been spent 
trying to tear down a company that has enriched our national economy 
and aided businesses worldwide. Enough is enough.
    Sincerely,
    Marie Schulte



MTC-00029715

Leonard R. Beard
841 East 12th Street
Crowley, La. 70526
(337) 781-2317
January 28,2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    Nearly 30 million dollars in taxpayer funds have been spent on 
this case. The time and expense of this case combined with the 
uncertainty it has led to in the technology sector leads me to 
believe that now is time that we settle this case.
    I do appreciate the government's efforts in protecting 
consumers. The settlement is appropriate in scope because it 
addresses only those items upheld by the courts and it provides for 
close monitoring of future Microsoft operations.
    Let's get the technology companies back to competing, which will 
help consumers and our economy. Thanks for considering my views on 
this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Beard



MTC-00029716

STEPHEN J. OATS 1
WILLIAM M. HUDSON, III 1,2
HENRY ST. PAUL PROVOSTY 1
EDGAR D. GANKENDORFY 1
KENNETH M. HENKE
CLIFTON O. BINGHAM, JR. 3
PATRICK B. MCINTIRE
LAWRENCE E. MARINO 2
HENRY A. HERNAKD. JR.
CRAIG T. BROUSSARD
MICRHELLE K. BUFORD
WALTER R. WELLENREITER
ROBIN L. JONES
CHRISTOPHE B. SZAPARY
ANDREW D. RENTON
OF COUNSEL
OSCAR E. KEED, JR.
VICTORIA A. GUIDRY
STANLEV. B. BLACKSTONE 1.3
CHRIS M. TREPAGNIER 1
OATS & HUDSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
SUITE 400
GORDON SQUARE
100 EAST VERMILION STREET
LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70501
TELEPHONE (337) 233-1100
FACSIMILE (337) 233-1178
cbroussard@oatshudson.com
January 27, 2002
SUITE 200
530 NATCHEZ STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130
TELEPHONE (504) 527-0960
FACSIMILE (504) 524-2823
SUITE 200
BELISLE BUILDING
350 THTRD STREET
BATON ROUGE, LOISTANA 70801
TELEPHONE (225) 383-9993
FACSIMILE (225) 383-6993
1 PROFESSIONALIAW CORPORATION
2 ALSO ADMHTTD IN TEYAS
3 BOARD C??TIFIED TAX AT??
TO: Renata Heese, Esq.
FROM: Craig T. Broussard
FAX NO.: 202-616-9937
HARD COPY SENT: No
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
OUR FILE: FE
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 2
MESSAGE: Please see the attached.
    If you experience any problems with this transmission, please 
call Dina at the telephone number listed above.
STEPHEN J. OATS"
WILLIAM M. HUDSON, III??
HENRY ST. PAUL PROVOSTY 1
EDOAR D. GANKENDORPP 1
KENNETH M. HBNKB 1
CLIFTON O. BINGHAM. JR. 1
PATRICK B. MCINTIHB
LAWRENCE E. MARINO??
HENHY A. BERNARD, JR.
CRAIG T. BROUSSARD
MICHELLB K. BUFORD
WALTER R. WELLBNREITER
ROBIN L. JONES
CHRISTOPHE B. SZAPARY
OP COUNSBL
OSCAR B. REED, JR.
STANLEY B. BLACKSTONE 1,2
VICTOHIA A. GUIDRY
CHRIS M. TREPAONIRR 1
OATS HUDSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP OP PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
SUITE 400
GORDON SQUARE
100 EAST VERMILJON STREET
LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA 70501
TELEPHONE (337) 233-1100
FACSIMILE (337) 233-1178
January 22, 2002
SUITE 200
530 NATCHEZ STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130
TELEPHONE (004) 527-0960
FACSIMILE (504) 524-2823
SUITE 200
BELISLE BUILDING
350 THIRD STREET
BATON ROUGE. LOUISIANA 70801
TELEPHONE (220) 383-9993
FACSIMILE (225) 383-0993
1 PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
2 ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS

[[Page 28725]]

3 BOARD CERTIFICD TAX ATTORNEY
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    I am of the opinion that it is in the best interest of consumers 
and all involved that this case be settled once and for all.
    It is my understanding that the settlement addresses the 
findings of the court and provides for future operations by 
Microsoft that will avoid any monopolistic practices. That is good 
news for all parties.
    The bottom line is that enough tax dollars have been spent in 
this effort and now is the time for our technology companies to 
return to the marketplace battlefield. That would be the best news 
for consumers and our economy.
    I appreciate your consideration of my views on this matter.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029717

ATTN: Ms. Renata B. Hesse (DOJ)
202-307-1454
    Ms. Renata,
    This note is to inform you & the Dos that I love support the 
Microsoft Settlement. Please "Approve the Microsoft 
Settlement".
    Thank you
    MR & Mrs K. Ni??henke
    K. Ni??



MTC-00029718

January 28th, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
microsoft.atr@usdoc.gov
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a co-owner of medium size construction company in central 
Missouri, I have observed the Microsoft lawsuit from the beginning. 
It appears to me from the press that this case has come full circle 
and now is the time settle. Based upon my review of the summary of 
the lawsuit it would appear that the Department of Justice has 
garnered a fair compromise with Microsoft. While I cannot 
specifically defend the software glant's business practices, I 
remain skeptical that this case should have been dismissed some time 
ago.
    Now is the time to settle the case against Microsoft. Thank for 
allowing me to offer my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Hentges



MTC-00029719

Mr. Kenneth Cordon
821 W. Walnut Street
Chanute, KS 66720
January 17, 2002
U.S. Department of Justice
Anti-Trust Department
Attn: Renata Hesse
601 "D" Street NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Hesse:
    I am writing to take advantage of the opportunity for the public 
to express its opinion regarding the anti-trust lawsuit filed 
against Microsoft. Thank you for making this opportunity available. 
I believe that the entire basis for suing Microsoft in the first 
place was flawed. The argument posed by Janet Reno was that 
Microsoft was engaging in monopolistic practices which were 
detrimental to the buying public. And yet, Correct me if I'm wrong, 
but haven't the prices of computers and software been falling? Isn't 
the definition of a monopoly a company that shuts out its 
competitors so it can raise prices? That just doesn't make sense.
    I hope you'll agree with President Bush that winding up this 
lawsuit is the right thing to do. It's been going on too long 
already.
    Thanks for letting me comment.
    Very truly yours,
    Mr. Kenneth Cordon



MTC-00029720

Coastal Equipment Corporation
PO Box 1118
Portland Maine 04104
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement. 
The lawsuit has ensued for three years now. Continuing the 
litigation will only amount to an incredible waste of resources. 
Settling is in everyone's best interest.
    If antitrust laws have been violated, steps should be taken to 
ensure no further violations occur. The settlement agreement should 
provide the appropriate safeguards. The agreement provides for the 
creation of a technical review committee that will monitor 
Microsoft's business practices. The review committee will also field 
complaints from parties who believe the settlement agreement is not 
complied with.
    Microsoft has agreed to disclose portions of its code to its 
competitors. I do not agree that Microsoft should be forced to give 
away what it has worked hard at developing. However, if Microsoft is 
agreeable to this concession,. I would support that decision in the 
interest of resolving this case and moving on to other endeavors.
    Your efforts toward resolving this lawsuit are appreciated. 
Thank you for your time m reviewing my thoughts on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Goldstein



MTC-00029721

1425 Bella Vista Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33156
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was happy to hear of the recent settlement regarding the 
Microsoft antitrust suit. During these times of recession, it is 
important to allow our industry to continue to develop. Holding the 
IT sector back, by dragging out the negotiation process, can only 
hold back our technology industry. Let us allow the IT sector to get 
back to business.
    Not only do the terms of this agreement promote the competitive 
process, but they also open up avenues of development on both sides 
of the fence. Although Microsoft has made an overwhelming number of 
concessions, they are still able to prosper somewhat. The other 
software manufacturers have been given many new options with regard 
to licensing, marketing and new avenues in running non-Microsoft 
software. All parties involved are ready to move forward and get 
back to business. By thwarting this process, we only hold up the 
advancement of the 1T sector and our economy in general.
    Let us help our economy move forward by supporting our 1T 
sector. The competitive market is a global one, and we need to work 
together to keep our piece of the pie. Help us to move this 
settlement along, by making sure that no more action is taken 
against it. I thank you for your help
    Sincerely,
    Maria Brito



MTC-00029722

Oilfield Services
Schlumberger-Doll Research
36 Old Quarry Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877-4108
Tel: 203 431-5000
Fax: 203 438-3819
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 25, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion on the antitrust case 
settlement between the US department of Justice and Microsoft. I am 
glad to see that there will soon be an end to this lawsuit. It has 
been a waste of our government's resources and our tax dollars. Does 
the government want to be responsible for an Enron-type business 
failure? They need to end this case immediately so that we can all 
move on with our lives.
    I am a Research Scientist and use Microsoft products all the 
time for my work. Their company has been responsible for the advent 
of our computer industry, as we know it. They have also created 
tremendous growth in our economy and have put our nation ahead in 
the technology race. The proposed settlement is a very fair 
compromise and should be enacted at once. Microsoft is going to 
share an unprecedented amount of technology information with their 
competitors and they will give consumers more choices by allowing 
OEM's to install non-Microsoft products on Windows.
    Please use your influence to implement the settlement as soon as 
possible. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Chung Chang



MTC-00029723

16112 E 28th Terr. #1806

[[Page 28726]]

Independence, MO 64055
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was pleased to learn that the Justice Department has reached a 
proposed settlement agreement in the Microsoft litigation.
    You now have the opportunity to clean up the mess created by 
your predecessor. Microsoft was the target of this litigation 
because of its size and because of its great degree of success. Your 
implementation of this settlement will bring an end to the political 
witch-hunt. Microsoft has placed a number of concrete proposals on 
the table to resolve the case. They have agreed to changes in almost 
every aspect of their business operations, from pricing, to 
distribution, to system design. These changes, if implemented, 
should provide additional competitive opportunities for Microsoft's 
competitors and more choice for computer users. Please go forward 
with the settlement and let Microsoft get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Kormanik



MTC-00029725

(708) 547.5969
DESSERT SPECIALISTS
FAX (708) 547-5974
lezza@ameritech.net
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to express my belief that the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft should be concluded. The settlement 
reached in November 2001, should be accepted by the Justice 
Department.
    Microsoft has offered very generous terms includes full access 
to the Windows system for rival software developers. Never before 
has a company had to offer its competitors the right to use its own 
information against itself. This is a legal first and will allow 
rival developers the chance to drastically improve their own 
software. The economy and the country need a strong American 
company, like Microsoft, to help us through these trying times A 
lawsuit against Microsoft does nothing but damage our economy, and 
our country. Please take this opportunity to put an end to this 
suit. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Lezza



MTC-00029726

S&D SALES COMPANY, INC.
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement for the following 
reasons:
    Microsoft has agreed to a number of changes in its business that 
result in greater competition and growing consumer choice:
    . Adoption of a Uniform Price List under which Microsoft will 
market Windows on identical terms and conditions to computer makers.
    . Revising agreements which would allow third parties to 
distribute products other than those manufactured by Microsoft.
    . Granting rights to computer makers to reconfigure Windows 
systems so as to allow the placement of non-Microsoft programs 
within Windows.
    I would rather see this case concluded now with a predictable 
result than see you roll the dice in Court. The Bill Clinton 
Department of Justice instigated this unnecessary case. Government 
at its worst caused the subsequent decline in the technology side of 
the economy. Please do not jeopardize the fragile business rebirth 
that the U.S. is going through by extending this case.
    Thank you for reviewing my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Lange
    Excellence In Bulk Material Handing
    2965 Flowers Road South, Suite 110
    . Atlanta, Georgia 30341-5520
    . 770-936-8836
    . Fax 770-936-8846 . 800-878-4419
    URL: http://www. sdsales.com
    e-mail: info @ sdsales.com



MTC-00029727

JFERRY WALLACE
708 W. Main Street
Cherryvale, KS 67335
January 21, 2002
Judge Kollar Kottely
Attention: Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kottely:
    Those lobbying for stricter regulations against Microsoft had 
better be careful what they wish for. I seriously doubt that they 
wish to operate under the same level of scrutiny themselves. 
Contrary to the claims of the antitrust suit, Microsoft has done 
nothing but benefit the consumer in terms of providing better, more 
innovative products at affordable prices.
    I ask you to accept the current settlement offer, concluding 
this questionable lawsuit. Settlement of the suit will definitely 
crimp Microsoft to some extent, but the fact remains that the 
consumer will still choose the products they prefer. The only fair 
way that AOL, Oracle, and other Microsoft competitors can knock off 
Microsoft's top spot is to truly offer a better product, Hopefully 
this lawsuit will spur an investigation of the underlying issue, 
current antitrust law, and how this law does or does not apply to 
modem day business.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Wallace



MTC-00029728

1111 Harbor Lane
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am disgusted that the government has so little to do with its 
time that it can waste nearly four years pro-suing the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I hoped that the economy, which has been suffering 
ever since this case began, would have the chance to recover. 
Microsoft's opponents have kept after Microsoft for so long. It is 
truly becoming tedious.
    The settlement provides Microsoft's competitors with the 
opportunity to use Microsoft's technological advances to their own 
advantage, in order to restore an atmosphere of fair competition to 
the technology market. For example, Microsoft will reformat future 
versions of Windows so that its competitors will have the 
opportunity to introduce their own software directly into the 
Windows operating system. Microsoft will also allow computer makers 
the ability to replace Microsoft programs in Windows with non-
Microsoft alternatives.
    The settlement is fine; in fact, I think it would be harm tiff 
to the consumer to extend litigation any longer. The suit is no 
longer about progress; it is about inhibition. America desperately 
needs to be able to progress. I urge you and your office to take the 
necessary action to see this settlement finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin Barksdale
    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00029729

TRUEWATER
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    There has been enough posturing on both sides of this Microsoft 
lawsuit to make a flock of peacocks jealous, and more confusion than 
a chicken running around with its head cut off. It is clear that any 
further litigation would only make matters worse.
    I am writing to lend my individual support for this settlement. 
I believe that its terms are reasonably fair for both sides. They 
make sure that Microsoft avoids its allegedly unfair retaliation 
practices to software makers, such as attaching software to Windows. 
It will also be required to change future versions of Windows to 
accommodate other brands of software more effectively.
    I am hoping that no further federal action will be necessary, 
and that this sort of rancor can be minimized in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Britt
    Cc: Representative Sheila Jackson Lee



MTC-00029730

1901 Empire Drive
Waukesha, WI 53186
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that a settlement has been reached in the Microsoft case, I 
would like to confirm

[[Page 28727]]

my support behind the terms negotiated and allowing this action to 
be completed. As a technology consultant, I am fully aware that 
Microsoft has overstepped its bounds in some respects in the past, 
yet this lawsuit has gone beyond what any reasonable person would 
consider worth the price in government time and money. A deal is a 
deal and it's time to put this issue to rest. There is ample 
competition to Microsoft and many "disruptive 
technologies" emerging that will change the balance of market 
dominance.
    Microsoft is a great success story that is being punished, 
rather than lauded, for its achievements in the software industry. 
To suggest a break up would be an injustice to entrepreneurs 
everywhere who want to create the best products and services 
possible for their customers. This compromise offers significant 
concessions to how Microsoft can freely do business and should be 
considered a credible good faith gesture to allowing more 
competition.
    Considering the greater freedoms for computer makers to 
configure Windows without question and developers to utilize Windows 
technology for their own interests, this deal should pass the 
approval process at once. This is the fairest solution possible 
among these parties, and also the most practical one, considering 
the need for stability, in this dicey economic climate. Please halt 
any further action.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Mattson



MTC-00029731

FLAMINGO TOURS
4230 S. E. 6TH Street
Miami, Florida 33134
[305] 445-6865
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, N. W. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital sector 
of our economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice, and 
falls to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling 
against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. 
The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short 
to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained 
and expanded its monopoly power through years of fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions of this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust laws.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions such as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets, and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft is now able to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use anticompetitive 
tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After more than 
11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft, surely 
we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Rose Wayne



MTC-00029732

January 15, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft does not put an end to Microsoft's questionable 
practices.
    Does the final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy? Does it sufficiently address consumer choice and meet the 
standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft 
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? These 
questions remain unanswered. The five-year time frame of the 
proposed settlement seems far too short to deal with the multiple 
antitrust actions of a company that has maintained and expanded its 
monopoly power through years of unmatched success. Microsoft's 
liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open for debate. The 
company has been found liable before the District Court, lost its 
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for rehearing in 
the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court 
turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft possesses 
monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to protect its 
monopoly.
    The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly deny to Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity." This proposed settlement may not be 
strong enough.. In fact, the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice seems to ignore key aspects of the Court of 
Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision as it stands gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product, thus failing to terminate Microsoft's standing 
position in the market.

[[Page 28728]]

The settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate against would-be 
competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors doing 
business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key terms, 
which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would ham the company's 
security or software licensing. The question is, who gets to decide 
whether such harm might occur? The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the provisions in this proposed deal may create a 
scenario in which Microsoft has too much freedom. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for 
only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Various industry experts from such institutions as Morgan 
Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and 
Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying that this settlement 
is beneficial to Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft may still be able to preserve 
and reinforce its predominance. After more than 11 years of 
litigation and investigation against Microsoft, I eagerly await what 
is to be the final outcome.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Manolo Coroalles
    President
    Dupont Plaza Travel



MTC-00029733

January 15, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft does not put an end to Microsoft's questionable 
practices.
    Does the final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy? Does it sufficiently address consumer choice and meet the 
standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft 
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? These 
questions remain unanswered. The five-year time frame of the 
proposed settlement seems far too short to deal with the multiple 
antitrust actions of a company that has maintained and expanded its 
monopoly power through years of unmatched success.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly.
    The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity." This proposed settlement may not be 
strong enough.. In fact, the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice seems to ignore key aspects of the Court of 
Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision as it stands gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product, thus failing to terminate Microsoft's standing 
position in the market.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate against would-be 
competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors doing 
business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key terms, 
which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. The question is, who gets to decide 
whether such harm might occur? The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the provisions in this proposed deal may create a 
scenario in which Microsoft has too much freedom. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for 
only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Various industry experts from such institutions as Morgan 
Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and 
Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying that this settlement 
is beneficial to Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft may still be able to preserve 
and reinforce its predominance. After more than 11 years of 
litigation and investigation against Microsoft, I eagerly await what 
is to be the final outcome.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Santiago Morales
    President
    MaxiForce, Inc.



MTC-00029734

January ??, 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. 20503-000??
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement m?? does not adequately protect competition 
and ??ation in this ?? sector of our economy does not sufficiently 
address consumer choice and fails to meet t he standards for a 
remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Its enforcement provisions are 
??ague and unenforceable. The five-year time frame of the proposed 
settlement is far too short to deal with the antitrust abuses of a 
company that has maintained and expanded its monopoly power through 
years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The

[[Page 28729]]

company has been found liable before the District Court, lost its 
appeal to the ??ed States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for rehearing in 
the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court 
turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft possesses 
monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to protect its 
monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory ??olations, and prevent any ?? 
??competitive activi??. This proposed settlement fails to do so. In 
fact, the weak settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice ??gnores key aspects of t he Court of Appeals ruling against 
Microsoft. The decision gives Microsoft "sole 
discretion" to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating ?? product. The deal 
tails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly and instead, guarantees 
its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with ?? and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company ?? 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur Microsoft The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another another provision permits 
those payments and deals when they are "reasonably 
necessary". The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be 
"reasonably necessary" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft tree to do practically whatever ?? wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
wel??are in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and VI&I Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards.
    Juan D ??
    President
    ??eRespondo.com. Inc



MTC-00029735

January 7, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft is now able to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, and

[[Page 28730]]

is also free to use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance 
into other markets. After more than 11 years of litigation and 
investigation against Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Raul Valdes-Fauli
    5700 Collins AV, #9-G
    Miami Beach FL 33140



MTC-00029737

THE AMERICAS-COLLECTION
PRIVATE & CORPORATE FINE ARTS DEALERS
January 7, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital sector 
of our economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and 
fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling 
against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. 
The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short 
to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained 
and expanded its monopoly power through years of fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft is now able to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use anticompetitive 
tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After more than 
11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft, surely 
we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Dora Valdes-Fauli
    Director



MTC-00029738

    January 18, 2002
    Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
    Government Relations & Public Affairs Counselors 2350 Coral 
Way, Suite 301
    Miami, Florida 33145
    Telephone (305) 860-0780
    Facsimile (305) 860-0580
    c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW Suite
    1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fads to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. In 
addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many strong-
sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. The agreement 
requires Microsoft to share certain technical information with other 
companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to share 
information if that disclosure would harm the company's security or 
software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm might 
occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft "shall 
not enter into any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to 
develop or distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's 
products. However, another provision permits those payments and 
deals when they are "reasonably necessary." The

[[Page 28731]]

ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft is now able to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use anticompetitive 
tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After more than 
11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft, surely 
we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards, Fausto Gomez
    President
    Gomez Barker Associates



MTC-00029739

    January 15, 2002
    Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
    c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft does not put an end to Microsoft's questionable 
practices. Does the final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy? Does it sufficiently address consumer choice and meet the 
standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft 
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? These 
questions remain unanswered. The five-year time frame of the 
proposed settlement seems far too short to deal with the multiple 
antitrust actions of a company that has maintained and expanded its 
monopoly power through years of unmatched success. Microsoft's 
liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open for debate. The 
company has been found liable before the District Court, lost its 
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for rehearing in 
the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court 
turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft possesses 
monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to protect its 
monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity" This proposed settlement may not be 
strong enough.. In fact, the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice seems to ignore key aspects of the Court of 
Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision as it stands gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product, thus failing to terminate Microsoft's standing 
position in the market.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate against would-be 
competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors doing 
business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key terms, 
which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. In 
addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many strong-
sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The agreement 
requires Microsoft to share certain technical information with other 
companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to share 
information if that disclosure would harm the company's security or 
software licensing. The question is, who gets to decide whether such 
harm might occur?
    The settlement says that Microsoft "shall not enter into 
any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to develop or 
distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's products. 
However, another provision permits those payments and deals when 
they are "reasonably necessary." The ultimate arbiter 
of" when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the provisions in this proposed deal may create a 
scenario in which Microsoft has too much freedom. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for 
only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Various industry experts from such institutions as Morgan 
Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and 
Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying that this settlement 
is beneficial to Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions. 
Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft may still be able to preserve 
and reinforce its predominance. After more than 11 years of 
litigation and investigation against Microsoft, I eagerly await what 
is to be the final outcome.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Abel ?? Iglesias
    828 Maria??a AV
    Coral Gables FL 33134



MTC-00029740

EMS educational management services, inc.
January 18, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital sector 
of our economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and 
fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling 
against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. 
The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short 
to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained 
and expanded its monopoly power through years of fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that

[[Page 28732]]

other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Antitrust law has 
protected free markets and enhanced consumer welfare in this country 
for more than a century. The Microsoft case does not represent a 
novel application of the law, but is the kind of standard antitrust 
enforcement action that could ensure vigorous competition in all 
sectors of today's economy. These same standards have been applied 
to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil and AT&T. Court 
decisions to break up these monopolies led to prices declining as 
much as 70% and an increase in competition-driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft is now able to preserve and 
reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use anticompetitive 
tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. After more than 
11 years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft, surely 
we can do better.
    Regards,
    Esther Tellechea
    President
    Educational Management Services



MTC-00029741

January 7, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequate 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the Untied States Court of Appeals for 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court defiled, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
system product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law. Sadly, the proposed 
final judgment has the potential to make the competitive landscape 
of the software industry worse, it contains so many ambiguities and 
loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will likely lead to years 
of additional litigation. Various industry experts from such 
institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab 
Capital Markets and Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying 
that this settlement is beneficial to Microsoft's current 
monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    That you for your time.
    Regards,
    Janet M. Perez
    Commercial Services Department
    Italy-America Chamber of Commerce Southeast, Inc.



MTC-00029742

January 15, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and

[[Page 28733]]

innovation in this vital sector of our economy, does not 
sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to meet the standards 
for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its enforcement 
provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year time frame of 
the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with the antitrust 
abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded its monopoly 
power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." The proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Rustic ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law. Sadly, the proposed 
final judgment has the potential to make the competitive landscape 
of the software industry worse, it contains so many ambiguities and 
loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will likely lead to years 
of additional litigation. Various industry experts from such 
institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab 
Capital Markets and Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying 
that this settlement is beneficial to Microsoft's current 
monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase rein competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    That you for your time.
    Regards,
    Jose Gutierrez
    Commercial Broker



MTC-00029743

January 17, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital sector 
of our economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and 
fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling 
against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. 
The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short 
to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained 
and expanded its monopoly power through years of fear and 
intimidation. Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no 
longer open for debate. The company has been found liable before the 
District Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw 
its petition for reheating in the appellate court defiled, and had 
its appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided 
that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used that power 
unlawfully to protect its monopoly.
    The next step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity." This proposed settlement fails to 
do so. In fact, the weak settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the Court of Appeals 
ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives Microsoft "sole 
discretion" to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating System product. The 
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly and, instead, 
guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft of define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. In 
addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many strong-
sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. Furthermore, 
the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for only 
five years. That is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 7-% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.

[[Page 28734]]

    Regards,
    Martin Mendiola
    Presient



MTC-00029744

January 7, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital sector 
of our economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and 
fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling 
against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. 
The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short 
to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained 
and expanded its monopoly power through years of fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unpredented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when those deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is ow able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Lourdes Castro



MTC-00029745

January 14, 2002
Vincent Import & Export, Inc.
751 North Greenway,
Coral Gables, FL
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
that appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discreti8on" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless pan of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has

[[Page 28735]]

the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets, 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Francia Quijada
    President
    Vincent Import & Export, Inc.



MTC-00029746

January 14, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. In 
addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many strong-
sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The agreement 
requires Microsoft to share certain technical information with other 
companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to share 
information if that disclosure would harm the company's security or 
software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm might 
occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft "shall 
not enter into any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to 
develop or distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's 
products. However, another provision permits those payments and 
deals when they are "reasonably necessary." The ultimate 
arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Daniel Guiterras
    Owner
    The Globe



MTC-00029747

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, N. W.
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft fails to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices. The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not 
adequately protect competition and choice, and fails to meet the 
standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft 
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement fails to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against

[[Page 28736]]

Microsoft. The decision gives Microsoft "sole 
discretion" to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating System product. The 
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and, instead, 
guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions of this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust laws.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions such as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets, and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is now able to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to use 
anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other markets. 
After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Alina Lopez-Centellas
    Vice President



MTC-00029748

January 15, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft does not put an end to Microsoft's questionable 
practices. Does the final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy? Does it sufficiently address consumer choice and meet the 
standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against Microsoft 
by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? These 
questions remain unanswered. The five-year time frame of the 
proposed settlement is far too short to deal with the antitrust 
actions of a company that has maintained and expanded its monopoly 
power through years of unmatched success. Microsoft's liability 
under the antitrust laws is no longer open for debate. The company 
has been found liable before the District Court, lost its appeal to 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 
7-0 decision, saw its petition for reheating in the appellate 
court denied, and had its appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. 
The courts have decided that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and 
has used that power unlawfully to protect its monopoly. The next 
step is to find a remedy that meets the appellate court's standard 
to "terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of 
its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity." This proposed settlement may not be 
strong enough.. In fact, the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the Court of Appeals 
ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives Microsoft "sole 
discretion" to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating System product. The 
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly and, instead, 
guarantees its survival.
    The settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against would-be 
competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors doing 
business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key terms, 
which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or soft-ware licensing. Who gets to decide whether such 
harm might occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for 
only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Various industry experts from such institutions as Morgan 
Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and 
Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying that this settlement 
is beneficial to Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation.
    The end result is that Microsoft may still be able to preserve 
and reinforce its monopoly, After more than 11 years of litigation 
and investigation against Microsoft, I eagerly await what is to be 
the final outcome.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    K. William Leffland
    Past Dean
    Florida International University



MTC-00029749

January 15, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft does not put an end to Microsoft's questionable 
practices.
    Does the final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft adequately 
protect competition and

[[Page 28737]]

innovation in this vital sector of our economy? Does it sufficiently 
address consumer choice and meet the standards for a remedy set in 
the unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia? These questions remain unanswered. The 
five-year time frame of the proposed settlement seems far too short 
to deal with the multiple antitrust actions of a company that has 
maintained and expanded its monopoly power through years of 
unmatched success. Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is 
no longer open for debate. The company has been found liable before 
the District Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw 
its petition for reheating in the appellate court denied, and had 
its appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided 
that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used that power 
unlawfully to protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a 
remedy that meets the appellate court's standard to "terminate 
the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory 
violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity." 
This proposed settlement may not be strong enough.. In fact, the 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice seems to 
ignore key aspects of the Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. 
The decision as it stands gives Microsoft "sole 
discretion" to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating System product, thus 
falling to terminate Microsoft's standing position in the market.
    The settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate against would-be 
competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors doing 
business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key terms, 
which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    In addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are fiddled with loopholes. The 
agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical information 
with other companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. The question is, who gets to decide 
whether such harm might occur? The settlement says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision permits those 
payments and deals when they are "reasonably necessary." 
The ultimate arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the provisions in this proposed deal may create a 
scenario in which Microsoft has too much freedom. The company 
appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and has the 
ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the committee 
finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, Microsoft 
must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the agreement for 
only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a company found 
guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Various industry experts from such institutions as Morgan 
Stanley, the Harvard Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and 
Prudential Financial have been quoted as saying that this settlement 
is beneficial to Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions. 
Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies led to 
prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in competition-
driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft may still be 
able to preserve and reinforce its predominance. After more than 11 
years of litigation and investigation against Microsoft, I eagerly 
await what is to be the final outcome.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Gustavo Godoy
    Publisher
    Vista Magazine



MTC-00029750

January 7, 2001
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The recent proposed settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft falls to put an end to Microsoft's predatory 
practices.
    The final settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft does not adequately 
protect competition and innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy, does not sufficiently address consumer choice and fails to 
meet the standards for a remedy set in the unanimous ruling against 
Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Its 
enforcement provisions are vague and unenforceable. The five-year 
time frame of the proposed settlement is far too short to deal with 
the antitrust abuses of a company that has maintained and expanded 
its monopoly power through years of fear and intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. The company has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, 
deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory violations, and 
prevent any future anticompetitive activity." This proposed 
settlement falls to do so. In fact, the weak settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores key aspects of the 
Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. The decision gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to do with 
operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows Operating 
System product. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly 
and, instead, guarantees its survival.
    The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors, take the intellectual property of competitors 
doing business with it and permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding. In 
addition, the proposed settlement contains far too many strong-
sounding provisions that are riddled with loopholes. The agreement 
requires Microsoft to share certain technical information with other 
companies. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to share 
information if that disclosure would harm the company's security or 
software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm might 
occur? Microsoft. The settlement says that Microsoft "shall 
not enter into any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to 
develop or distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's 
products. However, another provision permits those payments and 
deals when they are "reasonably necessary." The ultimate 
arbiter of when these deals would be "reasonably 
necessary?" Microsoft.
    Furthermore, the weak enforcement provisions in this proposed 
deal leave Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants. The 
company appoints half the members of its overseeing committee and 
has the ability to violate regulations, knowing that whatever the 
committee finds inappropriate is not admissible in court. Finally, 
Microsoft must only comply with the lenient restrictions in the 
agreement for only five years. This is clearly not long enough for a 
company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment has the potential to make the 
competitive landscape of the software industry worse, it contains so 
many ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable and will 
likely lead to years of additional litigation. Various industry 
experts from such institutions as Morgan Stanley, the Harvard 
Business School, Schwab Capital Markets and Prudential Financial 
have been quoted as saying that this settlement is beneficial to 
Microsoft's current monopolistic intentions.
    Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced consumer 
welfare in this country for more than a century. The Microsoft case 
does not represent a novel application of the law, but is the kind 
of standard antitrust enforcement action that could ensure vigorous 
competition in all sectors of today's economy. These same standards 
have been applied to monopolies in the past, such as Standard Oil 
and AT&T. Court decisions to break up these monopolies

[[Page 28738]]

led to prices declining as much as 70% and an increase in 
competition-driven innovation. The end result is that Microsoft is 
now able to preserve and reinforce its monopoly, and is also free to 
use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets. After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation 
against Microsoft, surely we can do better.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Ben Quevedo, Jr.
    Vice President- Administration Alliance Air, Inc.
    Alliance Air, Inc.



MTC-00029751

7505 S Avenida de Belleza
Tucson, AZ 85747-9707
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you this brief letter to ask you to utilize your 
office and influence to expedite the finalization of the settlement 
proposal in the Microsoft anti-trust case. This case is three years 
old, It has been the subject of endless controversy and continuous 
litigation, negotiation and mediation, and is now ready and ripe for 
settlement. Your Justice Department and Microsoft have reached an 
agreement. It is fair, timely and overdue. Please support it.
    The agreement will allow Microsoft to retain its present 
corporate structure. In return Microsoft will substantially change 
its marketing practices and marketplace philosophy. Microsoft will 
hereafter promote the use of non-Microsoft software by reconfiguring 
its Windows platform systems to readily accept competitors" 
products. Microsoft will now even share certain Windows technology 
with the rest of the industry in order to facilitate innovation and 
choice for consumers. Within the industry Microsoft will now license 
its Windows products to major computer manufacturers at similar 
terms and prices. This settlement contains all of this and more in 
an effort to prod Microsoft's competitors to greater market share. 
Such concessions merit a settlement.
    Let's let Microsoft get back to the work of leading the IT 
industry into this new century.
    Sincerely,
    Charlie Tucker



MTC-00029752

    RI?RESINTATIVE J. SAM ELLI?
    I you O?ETAICT ORRJCE AOO??OG:
    ?OT LODI?LATIVE OR?ICE BUILOING??L?J??. NC 37401-10??
    TELE?NONE: ? 735-6788
    ? 715-7080 ?
    HOHI AOC????; ? AU?UAN KWICNTOAL K ROAD
    ??LCICII. NC 2741?
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The United States Department of Justice has wisely approved the 
proposed consont docr??e that would end the federal government's 
three-year antitrust case against Microsoft. The North Carolina 
Department of Justice has done the same. I believe it is now time 
for the federal courts to accept the settlement and put an end to 
this unwise and unnecessary litigation.
    Yes, Microsoft has been a tough competitor. But the purpose of 
antitrust law is to protect the consumer, not to protect the market 
share of competitors. I have never seen proof set forth that 
Microsoft's business practices hurt consumers, Software has become 
more available, easier to use and less expensive. Millions of people 
have been able to use computers for the first time. Where is the 
consumer harm?
    Yes, in the interests of settling this case and ending the 
litigation, Microsoft has now agreed to accept unprecedented curbs 
on how it does business. It must provide more information to 
competitors and computer manufacturers. It must change the way it 
develops, licenses and market its software. It must accept the 
oversight of a technical committee.
    These are remarkable concessions. They were developed in tough 
negotiation led by a court-appointed mediator. They offer something 
for both sides. More important, they offer Microsoft, this industry 
and the technology-dependent economy the opportunity to end the 
costly and time-consuming litigation.
    I sincerely hope the federal court will approve this settlement. 
It is time to put an end to this ill-advised case.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Ellis



MTC-00029753

Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
Mictoso?? att??
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    From the beginning, the federal government's pursuit of 
Microsoft has been politically inspired and economically unwise. The 
case was conceived and even subsidized in the beginning by 
Microsoft's competitors. They sought to win in the courts what they 
could not win in the market. The government should never have 
initiated this proceeding. Now the courts have an opportunity to end 
this madness. Three years and $30 million of the taxpayers money is 
enough. At a time when terrorists threaten America and we are facing 
an economic slowdown, our nation. the information technology 
industry and Microsoft should not be forced to waste more time and 
money on this case. It is time to move ahead. Please put and end to 
this travesty.
    Sincerely.
    Ballard Evere??t



MTC-00029754

Rick Wolf
435 Glen Park Drive
Bay Village, Ohio 44140
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvanta Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice recently reached an 
agreement ending a three-year-long antitrust suit. I am in the 
computer industry and thus feel more confident to comment on the 
case. It should not have happened. The case was brought simply to 
give an advantage to Microsoft's competitors. I am as happen as I 
can be with the settlement, and hope this issue is finally over. 
What is totally ignored, and what I don't understand, is the lack of 
recognition of the way things were before Microsoft. Before 
Microsoft, there was no compatibility between software packages. You 
could have ten different software packages, none of which 
"talked" to cash other and you were left to have to deal 
with ten different companies. Nothing worked. Bill Gates saw an 
opportunity and seized it. Isn't that what you're supposed to do? 
Would it have been any better if it had been Sun Microsystems? Or 
IBM? Would the Justice Department be hounding these companies? Is 
success in this country only acceptable if kept within limits 
strictly define by the federal government? I have problems with the 
federal government and its intrusion into our everyday life. Can I 
bring suit against the federal government for being to large? 
Another example is AT&T. We had the best phone system in the 
world. Now, I do not understand my phone bill, I have to talk to any 
number of people, none of which take responsibility for my problem. 
I pay just as much for a fraction of the service. But, hey, the goal 
was accomplished; break up AT&T. It was too big, too good.
    The result of Microsoft's "business practices" is 
widely available, higher quality software at a very reasonable 
price. The only harm to the consumer comes from lawsuits like these. 
Companies should spend their money on research and development not 
legal fees. If my government wants to fix something that's broke, 
they should take a look at the medical industry.
    I appreciate your time in this matter, and would like to 
reiterate that fact that I am happy with the settlement. The economy 
can now move on.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Wolf



MTC-00029755

Evelyne N. Byll-Paul
12432 Braxted Drive ??
Orlando, FL 32837
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 register my opinion in support of the Microsoft 
settlement, To begin with, I agree with the 32 states that decided 
to not join the case in the first place. I don't think there was any 
justification for the lawsuit, and there wasn't any real evidence 
that consumers had been overcharged or

[[Page 28739]]

deprived in any way. There has always been flee choice in the 
computer marketplace, and people simply chose Microsoft's Windows 
over other systems, and a stronger market of partnering companies 
has built up around Windows.
    I work with Microsoft Windows NT to administer a local area 
network (LAN) in my division of our healthcare company, and we use a 
non-Microsoft billing software package customized for our industry. 
This collaboration is part of the strength of the Microsoft Windows 
system. The settlement will encourage still greater cooperation. For 
instance, Microsoft will release its software codes and allow 
computer makers to be more flexible in how, or if, they load Windows 
or other Microsoft software. The programs included in Windows 
installation, such as Internet Explorer browser and Windows Media 
Player, will be made easier to remove and substitute with non-
Microsoft products, like Netscape Navigator, Software experts on a 
government-sponsored technical committee will monitor Microsoft for 
compliance with the agreement, and investigate complaints. These 
provisions should enable the industry to make creative use of 
Microsoft's Windows innovations, and assure the industry that 
Microsoft will live up to the agreement. I appreciate the leadership 
you have provided in seeing that the settlement is approved by the 
Federal Court's new judge on this case. Once this case is resolved, 
the American will be better off. Thank you for considering my public 
comment.
    Sincerely,
    Evelyne Byll-Paul
    CC: Representative Rick Keller



MTC-00029756

FAX COVER SHEET
Aldosoft
569 Haight Street,
San Francisco, CA 94117
Work Voice:
Fax: (415) 861-5758
Home Voice: (415) 861-5758
To: Department of Justice
Company:
Fax: 1, 202-307-1454
Work Voice:
Home Voice:
From: Michael Alderete
Date: January 28, 2002
Time: 8:02 am
Number of pages, including cover: 4
Notes:
    My comments on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust trial, exercised under the Tunney Act.
January 27, 2002, 8:02 am
Michael Alderete
(415) 861-5758
January 27, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC, 20530-001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to exercise my right under the Tunney Act to voice 
my strong disapproval of the current proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust trial. The proposed settlement is both weak and 
lacking strong enforcement provisions, and is likely to have zero 
(or worse) effect on competition within the computer industry, with 
continued and increased harm to consumers in the form of fewer 
options in the software market and continued increases in the price 
of the Microsoft software consumers are forced to buy.
    Microsoft was convicted of abuse of monopoly power by one 
Federal judge, and the judgment was largely upheld by another seven 
Federal justices. In evaluating any proposed settlement, keep 
repeating one Important Phrase over and over: "Microsoft is 
guilty." The seven justices of the appeals court ruled that 
any actions taken against Microsoft (a) must restore competition to 
the affected market, (b) must deprive Microsoft of the "fruits 
of its illegal conduct," and (c) must prevent Microsoft from 
engaging in similar tactics in the future. The proposed settlement 
fails on every one of these.
    A) Restore Competition
    Among the many flaws in the proposed settlement is the complete 
disregard for the Open Source software movement, which poses the 
single greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's monopoly. Most 
organizations writing Open Source software are not-for-profit 
groups, many without a formal organization status at all. Section 
III(1)(2) contains strong language against non-for-profits, to say 
nothing of the even less-formal groups of people working on 
projects. Section III(D) also contains provisions which exclude all 
but commercially-oriented concerns. To restore competition the 
settlement must make allowances for Open Source 
organizations--whether formal not-for-profit organizations or 
informal, loosely associated groups of developers--to gain 
access to the same information and privileges afforded commercial 
concerns.
    B) Deprivation of Ill-Gotten Gains
    Nowhere in the proposed settlement is there any provision to 
deprive Microsoft of the gains deriving from their illegal conduct. 
Go back to the Important Phrase: "Microsoft is guilty." 
In most systems of justice, we punish the guilty. But the current 
proposal offers nothing in the way of punishment, only changes in 
future behavior. Currently Microsoft has cash holdings in excess of 
US$40 billion, and increases that by more than US$1 billion each 
month. A monetary fine large enough to have an impact on them would 
be a minimum of US$5 billion.
    Even a fine that large would be a minimal punishment. 
Microsoft's cash stockpile is used, frequently and repeatedly, to 
bludgeon competitors, buy or force their way into new markets, or 
simply purchase customers, with the long-term intent to lock people 
and organizations into proprietary software on which they can set 
the price. Taking a "mere" US$5 billion from their 
stockpile will have zero effect on this practice.
    For that reason, Microsoft's cash stockpile must be further 
reduced. In addition to the monetary fine, Microsoft should be 
forced to pay shareholders a cash dividend in any quarter in which 
they post a profit and hold cash reserves in excess of USS10 
billion. The dividend should be substantial enough to lower 
Microsoft's cash holdings by US$1 billion, or 10%, whichever is 
greater.
    C) Prevention of Future Illegal Conduct
    The current proposed settlement allows Microsoft to effectively 
choose two of the three individuals who would provide oversight of 
Microsoft's conduct and resolve disputes. The proposed settlement 
also requires the committee to work in secret, and individuals 
serving on the committee would be barred from making public or 
testifying about anything they learn. This structure virtually 
guarantees that Microsoft will be "overseen" by a do-
nothing committee with virtually zero desire or ability to either 
correct Microsoft abuses, or even call attention to them.
    Instead of the current proposal, a five-person committee should 
be selected. Microsoft may appoint one person, but will have no 
influence over any of the other four. For the four, two should be 
appointed by the Federal court of jurisdiction, one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice, and one should be 
appointed by the U.S. Senate. At least two of the appointees should 
have technical experience and be competent to evaluate technical 
proposals and arguments by themselves, without the filters which 
assistants would bring.
    These are hardly the only thoughtful and reasonable suggestions 
you will no doubt receive regarding the proposed settlement of this 
anti-trust case. And these are hardly the only suggestions which 
should be adopted if the settlement is to prove effective. Rut all 
of them are essential to that aim, and adopt them you must.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to comment.
    Respectfully,
    Michael A. Alderete
    569 Haight Street
    San Francisco, CA 94117
    (415) 861-5758
    michael @ alderete.com



MTC-00029757 to

    Dept. of Justice
    c/o Mrs. Renata B. Hesse
    Please approve the settlement to-day for Microsoft.
    As a taxpayer I am keen to see costs ended.
    Thanks,
    Joanna Gianeti Wood
    Shreveport, LA



MTC-00029758

JUDY PONTO
601 N 35th Avenue,
Yakima, WA 98902
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to ask for your support of the pending Microsoft 
settlement negotiated last November. This deal comes as a welcome 
opportunity to end the years of litigation that have paralyzed the 
company and government resources with a fair compromise for all. 
Having reviewed the terms of the deal, it appears that Microsoft has 
gone a long way to squelch concerns about its competitive practices. 
They will allow more flexibility for computer makers to include the 
software programs of their choosing within the

[[Page 28740]]

Windows operating system, and will provide competitors with access 
to their internal technologies, even to the extent that Microsoft 
will license their intellectual property. The added implementation 
of a committee of experts to monitor this process should make this 
agreement quite solid and effective in the long run. But clever 
people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a 
deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
    I look forward to your approval of the proposed settlement. Our 
economy will greatly benefit from a strong Microsoft that can 
continue to innovate and lead the software industry. Thank you very 
much.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029760

1111 Harbor Lane
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am disgusted that the government has so little to do with its 
time that it can waste nearly four years pursuing the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I hoped that the economy, which has been suffering 
ever since this case began, would have the chance to recover. 
Microsoft's opponents have kept after Microsoft for so long. It is 
truly becoming tedious.
    The settlement provides Microsoft's competitors with the 
opportunity to use Microsoft's technological advances to their own 
advantage, in order to restore an atmosphere of fair competition to 
the technology market. For example, Microsoft will reformat future 
versions of Windows so that its competitors will have the 
opportunity to introduce their own software directly into the 
Windows operating system. Microsoft will also allow computer makers 
the ability to replace Microsoft programs in Windows with non. 
Microsoft alternatives.
    The settlement is fine; in fact, I think it would be harmful to 
the consumer to extend litigation any longer. The suit is no longer 
about program; it is about inhibition. America desperately needs to 
be able to progress. I urge you and your office to take the 
necessary action to see this settlement finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin Barksdale
    cc: Representative Jefferson Miller



MTC-00029761

1-28-02
    MS. Renata B. Hesse
    DOJ
    "Approve the Microsoft Settlement"
    Christel K. Draeger
    13009 W. Willow Creek Lane
    Huntley, IL 60142



MTC-00029762

10 Benjamin Lane
Cortland Manor, NY 10567
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a computer professional in the technology industry, I am 
writing in favor of Microsoft. Microsoft is innovative, great for 
the technical sector and great for the economy. Look at what's 
happened to the technical sector and the NASDAQ since Microsoft went 
to litigation. Perhaps if we wrap this case up, we will see a 
rebound in those sectors.
    Microsoft is going out of their way to wrap up this case, beyond 
what would be expected in any antitrust case. They settled after 
extensive negotiations with a mediator and agreed to the 
establishment of a technical committee that will monitor their 
compliance with the settlement and assist with resolving any 
disputes.
    Microsoft has been through a lot these last few years. Let's 
move on. There are far greater issues that warrant our attention. 
Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Ernie Dufek



MTC-00029763

HODGDON POWDER CO., INC.
BOB HODGDON
6231 ROBINSON ST
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66202
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
601 "D" Street NW-Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to encourage your support for the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. What seems to have been lost in this case is 
that there was not one shred of firm evidence offered linking 
Microsoft to a single case of actual harm to consumers anywhere in 
the country. Yet, consumer harm was the premise for the launching of 
this suit against the company.
    I believe that Microsoft's offer to pay the legal expenses of 
the remaining states is a sign that the company is tired of being 
distracted by this case--especially given the recession we find 
ourselves in. I believe that the American people are also growing 
tired of officials like Kansas's own General Stovall continuing to 
drag it out.
    Many have lost jobs, had their savings and investments 
evaporate, and are watching the technology sector nose-dive. Much of 
which is the cause of this lawsuit.
    The last thing we need in the middle of a recession is a 
crippled technology industry and an out-of-control litigious 
government. This case should have been settled long ago. The Bush 
Administration says so and nine other states have said so--I 
hope you see it that way too.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Hodgdon



MTC-00029764

2401 Zion Hill Road
Weatherford, TX 76088
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November and believe this agreement will serve iv, the 
best public interest. I am a Microsoft supporter and feel that this 
company should not be punished for being successful.
    Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this 
settlement. Under this agreement, Microsoft must grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non- 
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows.
    Microsoft has also agreed to document and disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows' 
operating system products.
    We are facing difficult times and a lagging economy. We do not 
have time to waste on expensive litigation that will not benefit the 
public. Please support this settlement and allow Microsoft to get 
back to business. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029765

ARVIDA
Realty Services
OFFICE: 941-925-8586
FAX: 941-925-8750
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
TO: ??.FAX NUMBER: 202 307-1454
FROM: J.C. Jordan.#PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2
E-MAIL ADDRESS: TARHEEL18J @ AOL.COM
2227 Brookhaven Drive
Sarasota, FL 34239
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a citizen of this great nation, ! am writing to give my 
support to the settlement reached between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft. I support Microsoft, because they have a right to free 
enterprise. The government needs to stop their prosecution of 
Microsoft once and for all. As a real estate broker, I use 
Microsoft's products at my work, and feel their products are the 
most user friendly on the market.
    This settlement was reached after many hours of negotiations 
with a court-appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to document, 
and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows operating system products.
    Furthermore, Microsoft also has agreed to the establishment of a 
three person technical committee. This committee will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement, and aid in dispute 
resolution. Further pursuit of Microsoft would be a waste of time 
and money.
    Sincerely
    J.C. Jordan



MTC-00029766

8632 15th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11228

[[Page 28741]]

January, 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to urge you to give your approval to the 
Microsoft settlement, This would end three years of court battles 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The two parties 
have agreed to this agreement and I do not think it is the place of 
others to second-guess the decision. The fact that a federal judge 
accepted it is also evidence of a settlement. It has gone on far too 
long. It is time to quit wasting taxpayers' money and put some of 
that money towards things that are needed more, like highways, 
schools, the environment.
    Microsoft has agreed to a great many of the terms demanded by 
Justice. There is internal interlace disclose, computer-maker 
flexibility, granting computer makers new rights to configure 
Windows to promote non-Microsoft programs; there is an oversight 
committee. What more is there? Why should anyone work to make a 
company work, or invent something, if only to have to give it away? 
This whole lawsuit sets a very bad precedent.
    I urge you to let this decision stand and let us go forwards, 
not backwards.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley Hui



MTC-00029767

8632 15th Avenue
Brooklyn, N11228
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 give my support to the agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I did not support the 
original lawsuit against Microsoft I do not think the case was 
warranted. The lawsuit was more political than any outrage over 
unethical business dealings. Bill Gates has carried the 
technological revolution on his shoulders. He has enabled the 
average person to become part of the technological age. Does anyone 
remember what it was like before Microsoft? Bill Gates standardized 
computer software to enable its compatibility with other software. 
And people bought the product, because it was the best.
    Bill Gates has agreed to any number of terms demanded from the 
Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to share its source 
codes and books pertaining to Windows. that Windows uses to 
communicate with other programs: Microsoft has agreed to a three 
person technical committee to monitor future compliance; Microsoft 
has agreed to contractual restrictions and intellectual property 
rights. This is more than fair.
    Give your approval to this agreement Allow us to get back to 
work.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Hui



MTC-00029768

John & Geraldine Walker
Rouse 2, Box 126
Altoona, KS 66710
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust
601 "D" Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments 
regarding the proposed settlement of the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft.
    I strongly support settlement of this case. In my opinion, the 
sooner it is put to rest the better. I was not in support of the 
case being brought in the first place, but am glad that at least 
most of the suit's participants have found a solution that is 
acceptable to them.
    I understand the role of government in protecting consumers from 
entrenched monopolies, however I do not believe the laws on the 
books with regard to this apply to today's high tech industry. In 
the last few years of the anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft the 
high tech industry has already changed significantly, proving that 
the marketplace is a far better regulator of corporate behavior than 
the courtroom.
    I urge the court to approve the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case. It is the best course of action for our federal 
government to take.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. John walker



MTC-00029769

EARL LAIRSON & CO.
A Professional Corporation
Certified Public Accountants
TEL 713-621-1515
FAX 713-621-1570
P.O. Box 924948
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77292-4949
11 Gr??way Plaza. Suite 1515
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77045
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The tentative Microsoft settlement should be enacted at the end 
of January. The onslaught of this attack against Microsoft has 
stifled productivity in the technology markets, The enactment of 
this settlement, conversely, will increase confidence in the tech 
sector. With the recent recession causing layoffs in every industry, 
now is the time to finalize this settlement.
    Further the settlement has many points that will benefit members 
of the tech industry. Under the terms of the agreement Microsoft 
will now provide for the disclosure of protocols that are internal 
to the Windows system. This will enable developers to create 
software that is more compatible with the Windows system.
    I encourage the Justice Department to enact this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Earl Lairson



MTC-00029770

350 Plaza Estival
San Clemente, CA 92672
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a retiree who has been following this Microsoft antitrust 
case, I think it's time to leave Microsoft alone. Now that a 
settlement has been reached, let's move on.
    Microsoft did not get off as easy as its opponents would have 
people think. They agreed to terms that were well beyond what would 
be expected in any antitrust case. Microsoft also agreed to give 
computer companies the right to configure Windows in order to 
promote their software programs that compete with programs within 
Windows. Is there any other software company out there that does 
this?
    Enough is enough. There is no further need for litigation. I 
urge you to accept the settlement. Microsoft has cooperated, and now 
we need to do our part to get the economy going.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Raphael
    cc: Representative Darrell Issa



MTC-00029771

Tim L. Long
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The basis of the Microsoft lawsuit has been weak Cram the start, 
a failed attempt to shake Microsoft through negative media attention 
trod distraction. Microsoft has been hog tied by fresh legal 
complaints answering each advance they have made since the original 
suit, I fail to see how Microsoft is more corrupt than any other of 
the litigating parties, as opposition has blatantly used the courts 
to stall Microsoft in hopes of their own gain.
    The lawsuit against Microsoft may have originated with 
legitimate concerns regarding modern day antitrust issues, but has 
digressed to a manipulation of the courts by misguided ambition. 
Enough resources have been wasted on this debacle. The proposed 
settlement should be an acceptable solution for all, After all, 
Microsoft's competition has already won more than three years worth 
of media battles and scrutiny throughout the trial.
    Sincerely,
    1830-2nd Street SW.
    Cedar Rapids, ??owa 52404



MTC-00029772

INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM
PO Box 3058,
Arlington, VA 22203
PH: 703-558-4991
FX: 703-558-4994
FAX
To: Ms. Renata B. Hesse.
From: Nancy Pfotenhauer
Company: Department of Justice.
Phone:

[[Page 28742]]

FAX: 202-616-9937.
Date: 01/28/02 
Re: Microsoft Settlement.
pages: 3
Comments:
January 28, 2002
Ms, Renata B. Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing you today on behalf of the Independent Women's 
Forum to strongly advocate acceptance of the proposed Final Judgment 
offered by the U.S. Department of Justice (and endorsed by nine 
state attorneys general) to resolve the antitrust case against 
Microsoft Corporation. The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is a non-
partisan organization that focuses on issues that matter to women. 
We were formed in 1992 and have counted among our members some of 
the most credentialed legal scholars, economists and policy experts 
in our nation's capitol and across the country.
    As president of IWF, I am convinced that technological 
innovation is essential to enabling women to meet the competing 
pressures of our lives. When we speak with working mothers across 
the country it is clear that the most difficult challenge they face 
is balancing the demands of work and family. As a mother of five who 
works full time, I can tell you that I would have voted in a 34 hour 
day a long time ago if that were possible. Without the aide of 
technology, I do not believe it would have been possible for me to 
succeed at work and at home. For this reason--and for those 
detailed below--I was shocked at the government's initial 
attack on a company that has brought consumers so much innovation 
and quality of life enhancing products.
    As a professional economist, this proposed settlement quite 
frankly seems more than generous on the part of Microsoft. Any 
prolonging of the matter seems unjustified on economic or legal 
criteria. Candidly, it seems more motivated by competitors who would 
rather use government as a tool to hobble their commercial adversary 
than by any supportable antitrust theory. Even the Court of Appeals 
concluded that only inferential evidence exists that there is any 
causal link between Microsoft's conduct and its continuing position 
in the market. P.O. Box 3058, Arlington, Virginia 22203-0058 
Phone: 703-558-4991 Fax: 703-558-4994 
Website: www.iwf.org
    On the other hand, there seems very well-documented evidence 
that the original case against this company was launched as 
competitors spent vast amounts of money hiring former government 
officials whose sole job was to find an acceptable 
"hook" for the Antitrust Division at the Department of 
Justice. Additionally, the judge's very public comments to the media 
evoked an image of the old Salem witch-trials. As you are aware, the 
Court or' Appeals criticized him sharply. Unfortunately, by then, 
most of the public damage to Microsoft's reputation had been done, 
We are concerned that this entire exercise will dissuade others from 
taking the entrepreneurial risks inherent in creating new products 
for consumers.
    The IWF calls on the Department of Justice to accept the 
settlement that the federal government and the attorneys general of 
nine states have already approved. As female consumers who 
desperately want and need top quality technology products at 
reasonable prices in order to balance, the twin pressures of work 
and family, we ask you to end this legal wrangling that benefits no 
one and costs millions of taxpayer dollars.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Nancy M. Pfotenhauer
    President, The Independent Women's Forum



MTC-00029773

23648 Sunnyside Lane
Zachary, Louisiana 70791
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take some time and go on record as being an 
advocate of the settlement that was reached between the Justice 
Department and the Microsoft Corporation. It was about time that a 
settlement has been proposed, and I only hope that it is approved as 
soon as possible. Microsoft did not get off the hook easy, not by 
any means. But, the settlement will help in fostering competition in 
the technology industry and will also give the American economy the 
shot in the arm that it needs. I think that forcing Microsoft to 
give up its intellectual property is a bit much, but whatever it 
takes to improve our economy is fine by me. Microsoft will make 
available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms, any coding that Windows uses to communicate with another 
program running on it. Clearly, this settlement is more than just a 
slap on Microsoft's corporate wrists.
    This is going a bit far, but it is in the best interest of the 
nation to bring an end to this lawsuit. I am in support of this 
settlement because it does so. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Sherry Zorzi



MTC-00029774

12361 Charlotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64146
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my belief that you should accept the 
settlement reached between your department and Microsoft. This case 
has been going on for three years. If you choose to return to court 
and litigate an outcome, it may be three more years before a 
judgment is reached, and then additional time will be required for 
appeals.
    The agreement your department reached with Microsoft provides a 
concrete, immediate resolution to the case. The agreement may nor 
contain exactly everything you want, but it is a certain resolution 
in a time when our economy could use the certainty the agreement 
provides. The agreement's provisions relating to uniformity in 
pricing practices, an end to exclusivity requirements in 
distributorship contracts, and the opening of Windows to competition 
offer an improvement over the present situation. They also offer a 
degree of certainty that will not be afforded if the case continues. 
Please end the case by going forward with the settlement agreement 
your department reached last year. We will all benefit from it.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Albertsen



MTC-00029775

1OOO Chesterbrook Boulevard Suite 101
Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312
January 28, 2002
Attorney General 3ohn Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear about the settlement that has been worked out 
with Microsoft. It has taken three long year, to finally reach an 
agreement like this that is fair for both sides. I hope that the 
Federal government will let this be it and finally put the matter to 
rest.
    The settlement is fair. First of all, Microsoft will adhere to a 
uniform pricing list when licensing Windows out to the larger 
computer vendors in the United States. Also, Microsoft has agreed 
not to retaliate against companies that promote or use non-Microsoft 
products. Most importantly, Microsoft has agreed to share sensitive 
information with its competitors; information that will allow them 
to more easily place their own programs on the Windows operating 
system.
    I know that many people who daily depend on Microsoft products 
will write to you about this matter. I hope that you take their and 
my opinions into account. I support the settlement and look forward 
to seeing the suit come to an end. As a consumer and a user of 
Microsoft products, I do not feel that I am being 
"clobbered" by Microsoft. Many of their competitors 
would like you to think this is the case. Since many other companies 
can't effectively compete with their own inferior products, they 
want the taxpayers to help them get rid of Microsoft by way of a 
government breakup. Enough is enough, settle the lawsuit and allow 
Microsoft to get on with creating more innovative products!!
    Sincerely,
    Marc T Nettles
    Cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00029776

Rene Armbruster
6431 SW 64 St
Auburn, KS 66402
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
601 "D" Street--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Attorney General John Ashcroft and Microsoft's legal team are to 
be commended for their efforts to bring the Microsoft case to

[[Page 28743]]

an end. I am writing to express my strong support for this 
settlement and to encourage the court to accept this agreement.
    The economic benefits of ending this case should be taken into 
consideration. I am certain that the court is aware of the dramatic 
influence the DOJ's actions have had the technology sector. A look 
back in history clearly demonstrates a link between the beginnings 
of our bearish stock market to the order by a federal judge to bust 
up Microsoft.
    I believe that an honest effort was made by all parties involved 
in the creation of the settlement to be fair. This settlement 
establishes a committee that will oversee Microsoft's business 
practices in the future. Additionally, the company will not be 
allowed to cut special packaging deals with computer makers and will 
be forced to shared technical information with its competitors. This 
settlement is fair and it represents a step toward the technology 
sector getting back to work.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029778

InTouch Systems
742 Avenida Amigo
San Mar??os CA 92069-7313
(760) 734-4315 Voice & Fax
www.intouchsystems.com
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I strongly support the settlement recently agreed to by the 
federal government and Microsoft with regard to their antitrust 
lawsuit. The cost of this ordeal in monetary terms, as well as the 
setbacks it caused to innovation are staggering. It is time to move 
forward and repair the damage. The settlement is a good start in 
this endeavor.
    The settlement is a comprehensive approach to remedying 
Microsoft's alleged wrongdoings. Its adversaries should be very 
pleased with it, instead of attempting to derail it, as they are. 
Contrary to popular belief, the settlement foists some very. 
stringent terms onto Microsoft. Microsoft must share interfaces with 
its competitors. It also is charged with avoiding any form of 
agreement with another company to distribute Windows at a fixed 
rate.
    There are even more terms like this that work to fence Microsoft 
in after its allegedly overaggressive business model became hugely 
successful. The settlement achieves what it set out to 
do--increase the competition in the market--and so the 
judge should effect the settlement. Microsoft's adversaries should 
be quite pleased with the tenets of the settlement and should stop 
trying to derail its finalization by the court. The only reason its 
competitors are against this settlement is to put their own 
financial interests ahead of fair competition and the public 
interest.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Christian
    General Partner



MTC-00029779

Marc W. Banks
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite I200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have been employed in the pharmaceutical industry for over 
five years. My industry and personal livelihood depends upon my 
employer's research and development capabilities and its dedication 
to constant innovation in the treatment of a variety of human ills.
    The computer and technology industry is no different. In fact, 
one could argue that no other industry is the world is as co-
dependent and entwined with other industries as is the computer and 
technology field. Countless other industries rely on technological 
innovations to improve their own products and processes.
    For this reason, I have closely watched the progress of the 
Microsoft lawsuit. While I'm not completely familiar with all the 
intricate details of the suit, I understand the major issues 
involved. And yes, I agree it is important for there to be continued 
competition in the computer industry in order to foster even more 
innovation. I am not convinced, however, that a strong case was made 
against Microsoft in the first place.
    That being said, if news reports are to be believed, there seems 
to me to be a fair settlement before you for consideration. I urge 
you to accept the settlement and send a message that innovation is 
too important to be stifled in America.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Banks
    Territory Business Manager



MTC-00029780

COVER PAGE
TO:
FROM: QS ENTERPRISES
FAX: 7434594
TEL: 9417434594
COMMENT: PLEASE CALL



MTC-00029781

P.O. Box 496381,
Port Charlotte, FL 33949.6381
Fax
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft.
From Ken La Bad
Fax: 1-202-307-1454.
Pages: 1
Phone:.
Date: 1/28/02 
Re: Microsoft's Settlement.cc:
Comments
KEN LA BAD
P.O. BOX 496381
PORT CHARLOTTE, EL 3394,9
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my support in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. This settlement is comprehensive, fair 
and enforceable, and I am relieved that this issue has been settled 
and resolved. Please work to send it through the appropriate 
channels to ensure that it is finalizes as soon as the comment 
period is over.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft has agreed to disclose more 
information, such as certain Windows internal interfaces, and 
software books and codes to a technical oversight committee. This 
committee was created in response to the government's fear that the 
settlement would be considered unenforceable. As such, any company 
that feels that Microsoft is not complying with this agreement is 
free to sue; the technical committee will work as a go-between for 
disputants and Microsoft.
    Enough time and effort have gone into litigation against 
Microsoft. Thank you for settling with Microsoft and ending this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Ken La Bad



MTC-00029782

Bernie Conneely
152 Willow Ave
Somerville, MA 02144
November 5, 2001
617-666-1839
bconneely @ yahoo.com
Charles A. James
Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
901 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530
RE: The Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit
    Dear Mr. lames:
    Attached for your or your office's general reading pleasure is 
my somewhat detailed but hopefully very readable and understandable 
analysis of the recently proposed settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft, as well as what I consider to be somewhat more 
appropriate possible remedies.
    The document "Some Remedy Guidelines For Correcting Key 
Microsoft Monopolistic Strategies and Business Practices" is 
pretty self-explanatory both in title and in content. I am 
personally extremely unhappy with what appears to be nothing less 
that total capitulation by the Department of Justice in regards to 
Microsoft case and I can only hope that the states will go 
successfully forward with their own actions, and that the Tunney Act 
will serve a sufficient protection against final adoption of the 
settlement. I should mention that this document it submitted for 
your consideration as a singular effort on my part, with no input or 
connection to any other party to the antitrust proceedings against 
Microsoft. I just happen to be someone well-versed in the technical 
issues involved and their meaning and impact related to computer and 
Internet matters. Copies of the attached document are being sent to 
my state's Attorney General, Thomas Reilly, to the the states" 
lead attorney, Brendan Sullivan, and to Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
    Sincerely,
    Bernie Conneely
    Some Remedy Guidelines For Correcting Key Microsoft
    Monopolistic Strategies And Business Practices

[[Page 28744]]

    -Bernie Conneely
    (bconneely @ yahoo.com)
    Introduction
    I've been a self-employed general computer/network consultant 
and systems engineer since 1984 under the DBA name of Tobercon. I 
have seen and have dealt with a lot of issue relating to Microsoft's 
rise from mostly being the supplier of DOS to its current 
monopolistic pre-eminence in the computer industry. I've also been 
following the various lawsuits against Microsoft with some interest: 
you would be hard-pressed to find any hard-core tech people not 
aware of at least some of the "tricks" Microsoft has 
used over the years to leverage its products onto computers, from 
simple "bundling" to heavy-handed licensing agreements 
to the overt sabotage of competing products Mast, if not all of, 
these practices have come up at different points in the lawsuits, 
most especially the. DOJ amitrust suit. Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson's remarks may have been intemperate in a legal setting, but 
they were unarguably accurate in their depiction of Microsoft's 
behavior over the years. Actually, I felt the evidence against 
Microsoft to be so hefty and compelling that even a Republican 
administration generally favorable towards big business would be 
obliged to follow through in punishing and reigning in Microsoft's 
still-continuing misbehavior.
    Summary and Critique of the Proposed DOJ Settlement
    Judging by my perusal and analysis of the recent agreement 
reached between the DOJ and Microsoft (Civil Action No. 
98-1232), it would appear I was mistaken. The salient points 
of the agreement, listed by the pertinent sections, are that:
    III C. 1-2: Microsoft cannot prevent computer vendors from 
installing icons that run or install so-named 
"Middleware" products from Microsoft's competitors. Note 
that the key terms here are "icons" and 
"Middleware" which is defined in the agreement glossary 
as products similar to Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Java Virtual 
Machine, Media Player, Messenger, and Outlook Express It's unclear 
if the competing products themselves can be installed or merely the 
icons for their installation, or if this applies to Middleware 
products that have no Microsoft equivalent like Adobe Acrobat 
Reader, and whether too if this has any bearing on the installation 
of a non-Middleware product like a word processor or database 
manager.
    III C. 3-5: Microsoft can't prevent a computer vendor from 
installing the option to boot into an alternative operating system 
(typically Linux) or from having a non-Microsoft Middleware product 
launch on start-up.
    III F-G: Microsoft cannot prevent PC manufacturers, whether by 
licensing agreement or by threat of retaliation, from offering or 
installing competing products to Microsoft's operating system, 
Windows (the current version being "XP") or Microsoft's 
Middleware products This sounds reasonable enough, but the paragraph 
at III F3 has this section: "Microsoft may enter into 
agreements that place limitations on an ISV's ["Independent 
Software Vendor," meaning a Bernie Conneely--Microsoft 
Remedies Page 1 Contact bconneely @ yahoo.com for 
further info software developer other than Microsoft] development, 
use, distribution or promotion of any such software if those 
limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope and 
duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of the 
ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or to 
develop software for, or in conjunction with Microsoft" Got 
that?
    III H.1: Basically states that a consumer will be given easy 
means to remove the icons for any Microsoft or non-Microsoft 
Middleware program Note that removing the icon for any Windows 
program, whether from the Windows desktop, the Start Menu, or the 
bottom bar does nothing to actually uninstall the program--it 
merely hides it: the program files and registry, entries will still 
be there and program itself still active, especially if it's a 
Microsoft product.
    III H.2-3: Supposedly allows users to use the Middleware 
products from Microsoft's competitors in place of Microsoft's, and 
disallows Microsoft from using Windows to alter icon and menu 
settings of competitors" products installed by an OEM 
("Original Equipment Manufacturer," usually a computer 
manufacturer who installs Licensed versions of Microsoft Windows.) 
However. towards the end of III H.3 are two addendum sections that 
allow for Microsoft Middleware products to be automatically invoked 
when: No 1. when accessing a "server maintained by 
Microsoft"--presumably any Microsoft-owned web site like 
MSN or Microsoft.com and possibly sites co-owned by Microsoft like 
MSNBC), and No.2, when a some Microsoft-specific function like 
"ActiveX" is requested What this means is that a 
consumer will be permitted to use a non-Microsoft e-mail client or 
Web browser, but any Microsoft-related site can automatically invoke 
Internet Explorer. and Microsoft's e-mail clients Outlook or Outlook 
Express may be required to access e-mail from a Microsoft-related 
site, overriding the consumer's choices. Requiring Outlook or 
Outlook Express as part of an MEN account is well within Microsoft's 
rights and has precedent (most notably AOL) just so long as it's 
made clear to consumers that MEN is a closed, proprietary, online-
service that limits the means of access, unlike a general Internet 
access acount. ActiveX controls, however, have been a means for 
recent worms like NIMDA to infect PC's via Internet Explorer, a 
prudent computer user may not want ActiveX active at all or have 
Internet Explorer popping, up unwontedly.
    III J.J: Allows Microsoft to keep secret all its proprietary 
codes and encryption algorithms. This in effect will let Microsoft 
continue its poli??s of making it difficult if not impossible for 
competing products to interact or replace its own "Secure 
Password Authentication" for example is an encryption 
technique that prevents competing e-mail clients from accessing MEN. 
Likewise if a typical consumer who was not even using MEN warned to 
change from Outlook Express to a competing e-client he/she would 
find transferring over existing saved e-mails to be all but 
impossible, due again to encoding techniques unique to Microsoft and 
very probably designed to impede or prevent such changeovers to 
competing products.
    The entire proposed settlement is seemingly a major victory, for 
Microsoft. All "bundling" issues were dropped; competing 
products may be installed, but removal and total replacement on 
Microsoft's equivalent products can be blocked, there is apparently 
no penalty to Microsoft for violating prior agreements; and all that 
is demanded of Microsoft is that it doesn't overtly punish Bernie 
Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 2 Contact 
bconneely @ yahoo.com for further info computer 
manufacturers for installing any products from Microsoft's 
competitors and that it doesn't overtly sabotage the installation of 
said products Is this not the corporate equivalent of being put on 
probation, with not even the equivalent of having to do community 
service?
    Alternative Remedy Strategies
    Given the DOJ's apparent failure in reaching a true 
"remedy" in any meaningful sense. I've been moved to add 
my own expert 2-cents to the effort by going over what I consider to 
be some genuine and far more appropriate remedies, explained in 
understandable terms (1 hope) with pertinent examples, that are 
really needed to treat Microsoft monopolistic behavior. The DOJ 
capitulation is very unfortunate, but hopefully the states can show 
the backbone necessary to set things right.
    Before I go into the details, I should mention that regardless 
of the legalities involved, letting Microsoft continue to do what it 
has been doing will absolutely NOT benefit consumers in any way, 
snape, or form. Because of Microsoft's current monopolistic 
position:
    I. Consumers and businesses are at a higher risk to virus 
attacks because of inherent security and coding flaws in all of 
Microsoft products. The argument that Microsoft products are simply 
targeted more because they are the most popular is false: for 
example Apache web servers far outnumber Microsoft ??S web servers, 
but Apache was not affected by the Code Red and NIMDA worms. 
Microsoft has an ill-considered philosophy of sticking in 
programming "hooks" into all of its products, which in 
turn have been very exploitable by virus writers Very few other 
companies do this because of the inherent security risk in doing so.
    II. Removing Internet Explorer from Windows 98 or ME will speed 
up the computer and make it more stable. The most commonly used 
"Tool" to remove IE is "98Lite" a product 
downloadable from www.98lire.net Removing IE this way is a common 
technique for audio professionals doing high-end production work on 
a PC to maximize throughput and enable the most system resources for 
the audio software The average consumer, though, has no clue about 
being able to do this, and Microsoft's insistence that IE and 
Windows are inextricably tied together has confused the issue The 
relationship of IE to Windows is very much analogous to a TV having 
a built-in VCR. Yes, the VCR and TV components are sort of 
"inextricably tied together" in a disingenuous manner of 
speaking, but nevertheless the VCR can be removed from

[[Page 28745]]

the TV if one had the technical wherewithal, and without any undo 
damage to the functionality of the TV component And obviously and 
most importantly, the VCR component can be "unbundled" 
quite easily by the manufacturer, regardless. Just as Microsoft 
could do easily with IE
    III. If a consumer wanted to use a more stable operating system 
than Windows, like Linux, or a more advanced one, like BeOS, it 
would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for that consumer to 
be able to exchange certain types of files with other users, or even 
access everything available on the Internet. thanks to the 
monopolistic position of key Microsoft application products like 
Powerpoint, as well as certain web sites only allowing access via IE 
in clear violation of W3C guidelines ("W3C" is the World 
Wide Web Consortium, which is suppose to be the final authority 
regarding web standards). Other, much smaller companies have been 
good at offering versions of their products to run on alternative 
Bernie Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 3 Contact 
?? @ yahoo.com for further info operating 
systems, but Microsoft has not--they only support Windows and 
Macintosh (somewhat). Consequently even a very, very good product 
like BeOS can fail and is failing because certain key Microsoft 
products don't run on it and there are no suitable, compatible 
alternatives Even Linux, while making good headway in server 
applications and despite the enormous amount of development 
surrounding ?? has hit a brick wall as far as appearing on desktop 
computers primarily because of incompatibilities with a Microsoft-
dominated environment in home and in general business.
    IV. Microsoft's dominance and success in bundling has in general 
prevented good and even demonstrably superior products from being 
introduced to the average consumer Even one-time established and 
dominant products like Novell Netware and WordPerfect have gone in 
to such eclipse that the), are now marginal products despite still 
being superior products in many respects to Microsoft's
    V. Each newer version of Windows is harder to repair than the 
previous version. Microsoft. always claims each new version to be 
more stable and have more features than the version it replaces, and 
to some extent this is true: Windows 3.11 use to crash quite a bit. 
and Windows 2000 does crash far less than Windows 95 or 98; however, 
while Windows 3.11 would crash fairly frequently, it very rarely 
went "bad" to the point it needed expert 
troubleshooting--generally a simple reboot fixed things Crashes 
on subsequent versions were usually more serious and required much 
more time to fix. Damage caused by viruses are often extremely 
difficult to recover from in the later versions of Windows, as 
removal instructions for the NIMDA worm on any antivirus web site 
will attest to. The same also applies to Microsoft Office: since the 
average consumer can't completely uninstall Office (you need a 
special software "tool" from Microsoft) certain types of 
damage from viruses can't be fixed because the standard repair 
technique of reinstallation won't work Microsoft is and never was an 
"innovator" no matter how much you may want to stretch 
the meaning of the term Virtually all of Microsoft's products were 
"borrowed," licensed, bought or copied from other 
companies DOS came from Seattle Computer. Windows "came" 
from Apple, Internet Explorer from Mosaic/Netscape, Windows XP/NT/
2000 from IBM OS/2, and so on. Without exaggeration, one could say 
that most of Microsoft's creative efforts have been in leveraging 
its products into the marketplace by whatever means possible while 
keeping itself out off serious legal trouble
    This is not to say that Microsoft does not make good 
products--they actually make some very good ones (Powerpoint, 
Excel, Flight Simulator). as well as mediocre ones (Word, IE, 
Outlook) and some pretty terrible stuff(Access. ??S. Exchange 
Server) The point is that the merits of a given Microsoft product is 
irrelevant to how Microsoft has been able to leverage it into 
dominance into a given market by improper and likely illegal means, 
with an end result that at the very least means that many worthwhile 
competing products are kept away and out of sight from the average 
consumer
    So without further ado, here is one informed guy's recipe for 
remedying in a meaningful way the Microsoft problem:
    1) Internet Related Bernie Conneely--Microsoft Remedies 
Page 4 Contact e??oo.com for further info A) Allow Installation of 
Alternative System/Web Browser in Place of Internet Explorer 
("IE") Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, this 
is straightforward programming issue. The Interact Explorer 
"uninstall" function introduced in Windows XP merely 
removes the IE icon from the desktop--it is not a true 
uninstall in any meaningful sense. A true uninstall will separate 
out web-access components and return basic file/disk, network access 
8: browsing to a standalone Windows application similar if not 
identical to the original "Windows Explorer" program in 
Windows 95 and its counterpart "NT Explorer" in Windows 
NT. The user should be able to install and use any web browser of 
her or her choice, whether in its standard Function for web access 
or in place of IE for "active desktop" access or any 
other internal Windows process that IE would be used above and 
beyond that supplied by separate "Windows Explorer" type 
program..
    The burden will be on Microsoft to create a software program 
that will accomplish all this with minimal technical intervention by 
the user The program must be provided free of charge If Microsoft is 
unwilling to comply with creating such a software program, a 3rd 
party programmer or programming group of sufficient expertise should 
then be designated by the court or the DOJ (depending on whose 
ultimate responsibility it turns out to be) to carry out the 
programming objectives. This should be done at Microsoft's expense 
and with their full cooperation in providing whatever code and 
system information deemed necessary by the 3rd party programmers.
    I would have to say that allowing consumers from to truly remove 
IE from a computer and install a competing product in its place is 
probably the most important antitrust remedy that can be achieved, 
especially for the long term. It has become obvious that Microsoft 
is intent on using the near universal placement of IE to mitigate 
further inroads by competing operating systems like Linux and to 
leverage itself much further into general Internet commerce and 
services, especially through its. ".Net" 
initiative--which is basically a form of bundling that will 
ultimately make it nearly impossible for a consumer to do any sort 
of Internet commerce without the use of Microsoft products.
    B) Disallow/Discourage IE As A Requirement for Accessing Any 
Commercial Web Site
    There is a sizable number of web sites that currently only allow 
access via IE. If this was done via a licensing agreement with 
Microsoft and not because of any valid technical reason, all such 
agreements should be voided The governing body for all web standards 
is the World Wide Web Consortium ("W3C") and it is they 
who should define web standards, not Microsoft Microsoft itself 
requires the use of IE for many functions on its own web site. most 
especially ones related to updates to Microsoft's other products 
This requirement should be voided, especially since there really 
aren't any valid technical reasons for doing this (Antivirus 
programs are quite adept at checking for updates without even a 
browser requirement)
    As a matter of good web commerce, companies should be encouraged 
to keep their web sites W3C compliant, which will eliminate 
dependency on any particular web browser If it turns out Bernie 
Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 5 Contact 
bconnee?? @ yahoo.com for further info that it 
would be a burdensome cost for many companies to immediately make 
their web sites nonIE dependent, it may be necessary to have 
Microsoft come up with a "application" version of IE, 
meaning that it installs and behaves like a normal non-Microsoft 
application that doesn't embed itself into the Windows operating 
system IE for Apple's Macintosh works this way, so Microsoft has 
surf cleat familiarity with how to achieve this A user can install 
this application version of IE specifically to access those IE-
dependent sites without it "taking over" all web/file 
access functions as the normal version of IE does Still. this should 
be only an interim solution to allow for web sites to be made non-IE 
dependent without undue time pressure or burden
    C) Disallow IE as a Requirement for Microsoft's Other Products 
& Services
    There are no good valid reasons why Microsoft Word. Powerpoint, 
or whatever other Office component needs IE to be installed, 
likewise with even Microsoft's online services like MSN.
    Microsoft would argue otherwise, but all their technical 
arguments to date for unbundling IE have been disingenuous, 
misleading or simple outright lies Just recently, on October 25. 
2001. MSN locked out non-IE web browsers.
    Microsoft's explanation for this was. to put it very mildly, not 
very credible. The following was taken from a ZDNet news item

[[Page 28746]]

about the matter. Microsoft on Thursday contended that the upgraded 
MSN she uses World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards and that 
browsers that don't conform to the standards are being blocked out.
    "We supported the latest W3C standards when developing the 
co??ent and services delivered from MSN." Bob Visse, the 
director of MSN marketing said in an e-mail Friday. He added that 
Microsoft wants users to visit the Web site "regardless of the 
browser they choose.
    But Visse recommended that for the best experience with MSN, 
customers should use a browser that lightly adheres to the W3C 
standard.
    "If customers choose to use a browser that does not 
??gh??s support W3C standards, then they may enco??er a less then 
op??m??l experience on MSN." he said,
    On Thursday, he had said that the com?? expected to have MSN.com 
f??lly accessible to the browsers later in the day.
    The problem was actually not fixed until that following 
Saturday, which gave me a chance to run an experiment: on 10/26/2001 
at approximately 7:00 PM EST. I went to the W3C web site and 
downloaded "Amaya," an experimental browser developed m 
conjunction with W3C standards. After installing Amaya on my 
computer, I went to ?? to access www.msn.com and got this message, 
which was the same message all other non-IE browser users were 
getting: Attention: Web Browser Upgrade Required to View MSN.com
    If you are seeing this page, we have detected that the browser 
that you are using will not render MSN.com correctly Additionally. 
you'll see the most advanced functionality of MSN.com only with the 
latest version of Microsoft Internet Explorer or MSN Explorer If you 
wish to visit Bernie Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 6 
Contact ??com For further info MSN.com, please select the 
appropriate download link below Internet Explorer for Windows 
Internet Explorer for Macintosh MSN Explorer for Windows [end]
    Basically, in using "W3C Standards" as an excuse for 
requiring IE to access MSN. Microsoft outright lied. For the record, 
IE is the LEAST W3C compliant of all the current major web browsers, 
including Netscape 6.1, Mozilla, and Opera Checking in with the W3C 
organization will confirm this
    The same applies to Microsoft's main site www.microsoft.com 
which frequently needs to be accessed if you want to keep up with 
the latest security patched or updates. Ironically, it is NOT W3C 
compliant and makes non-IE browsers act funny Again, a little trick 
that has no technical or consumer benefit.
    Often, a consumer will be told he/she MUST install IE in order 
to use some online product or service, which is usually through some 
Microsoft licensing arrangement. "Quick Books Pro 2001" 
for example is an accounting program, but it will install IE 5 5 
automatically for no genuinely good reason. And if you go to the 
McAfee antivirus site www.incafee.com using any 4.xx version of 
Netscape, you will be greeted with a pop-up window requesting that 
you download IE for the benefit of doing just a trial test of its 
online scanner: however. Trend Micro's online scanner at 
www.housecall.antivirus.com has no such requirement
    As a side note, Microsoft also modified its Hotmail online 
service so that when a Hotmail user signs out. he/she is immediately 
redirected to Microsoft's MSN web site. While the newer non-IE web 
browsers don't get that annoying "Upgrade" message, 
older Netscape browsers do. Many public libraries in the Boston area 
at least have been standardized on Netscape 4.08 for a few years 
now, and now their many Hotmail users are getting that 
"Upgrade" warning once they are done, even though it has 
nothing at all to do with accessing Hotmail itself.
    Yet more Microsoft heavy-handed "tricks" even in the 
midst of all the current lawsuit and antitrust, activity
    2) Application Product Related
    A) Allow for Complete Removal of Any Installed Microsoft Product 
and Without the Need for the Installation CD
    Another common Microsoft "trick" is to make complete 
removal of its application products very difficult. Typically, a 
consumer will buy a new PC and find that it came pre-loaded with a 
Microsoft product like Works 2000, a very large and seldom used 
software suite. If the consumer is savvy enough to go to the 
"Control Panel" in Windows and try to uninstall Works 
via "Add/Remove" programs, he/she will be asked to 
insert a "Works" CD and no matter which of Bernie 
Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 7 Contact 
bconnee?? @ yahoo.com for further info the 
several Works CDs get inserted, it will seem to be the wrong one. 
The only way to remove is to either have a very technical friend 
delete The all the Works registry, entries and then The Works 
folders, or else go to the Microsoft web site and do a search on how 
to remove Works. and if he/she is lucky, this page will be found 
http//:support.microsoft.com/support/kb??70.ASP or perhaps this 
page: http://supprort.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles??74.ASP 
Removing Office 2000 is more straightforward but still requires the 
installation CD But if you need to completely remove it and 
reinstall it because of corruption or virus damage, then you must 
again go searching on the Microsoft site and if you are again very 
"lucky" you will find this: http://
support.microsoft.com/support/kb.articlesQ23??.ASP Or if you're not 
so lucky, you might find this instead: http://
support.microsoft.com.support/kb/articies??5/60.ASP
    There is not a single good reason for Microsoft not to include a 
genuine uninstall option to its software products, either for people 
who want to clear them off their systems or for users who just want 
to fix a problem by reinstalling
    B) No Automatic Replacement/Disabling of Another Company's 
Product or Feature
    This is seemingly covered in the DOJ settlement, but it should 
be made more explicit and that it covers all of Microsoft products. 
This sort of anti-competitor behavior is not a uniquely Microsoft 
trait (RealAudio is quite good at this in regards to MP3 music 
files) but it can be much more problematic given that it can 
interfere with functions critical to important business software For 
instance "LDAP" is a directory service usually built 
into mail server programs--a standards-based means of looking 
up e-mail addresses However. if you install a Windows 2000 server 
and add "Active Directory Services" it takes away LDAP 
from any non-Microsoft e-mail server you might want to install, 
forcing the installer [o either disable LDAP for the mail server 
users or else fiddle with the LDAP registry settings for mail server 
software, or else just give up and install Microsoft's own e-mail 
server program. Exchange Server Of course Microsoft allows no such 
changes with its Windows LDAP settings.
    C) A "Bare Windows" Option With Clean Registry
    After buying a typical retail PC, a consumer is usually faced 
with a daunting number of unwanted programs and add-ons that come 
with the system above and beyond what he/she expected. Some are 
bundled anti-trust baiting products from Microsoft. others are 
"value-added" products and quasi-free trails from other 
vendors, This is not a good thing because those programs slow down 
the computer, eat up resources, and generally make the completer 
less stable than it should be. Removing all of these programs is 
usually tricky, confusing and beyond the capabilities of the average 
user Microsoft. should include a global "Rem??" function 
to put the system to a basic state without any wasteful programs or 
registry e?? The consumer could then systematically add back any 
programs he/she actually needs or want, Bernie 
Conneely--Microsoft Remedies Page 8 Contact 
bconnee?? @ yahoo.com for further info Closing 
Thoughts
    It's been shown that Microsoft blatantly violated previous 
agreements, that it frequently misled and outright fled about its 
actions, capabilities and motives, that it was totally willing to 
doctor evidence in its behalf, that it still tries to undermine its 
competition through monopolistic leverage, and that these actions 
have been both harmful to the consumer and hurtful for the economy 
by excluding better, more secure products from the marketplace The 
recent incident involving MSN access to non-IE browsers clearly 
demonstrates that Microsoft has not mitigated its monopolistic 
operational behavior at all, even in the face of ongoing litigation 
If Microsoft again fails to comply with what final agreement is 
reached with the federal and state governments, a suitably severe 
penalty should be applied. My suggestion is the original break-up 
order by Judge Jackson with the addition of the release of all 
Windows 95/98/ME source code This Windows "lineage" has 
ended with the release of Windows XP, which follows from Windows NT/
2000, a completely different code set from 95/98/ME. This will 
protect Microsoft's current technological investment, but would give 
possible competitor:, an opening for creating a 
Windows--compatible operating system. That would, be a fair 
penalty I think.
    I can only hope that at least some of what ! wrote will be of 
some positive benefit

[[Page 28747]]



MTC-00029783

LEVINE SULLIVAN & KOCH, L.L.P.
1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET, NW
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
LEE LEVINE
CAMERON A. STRACHER
MICHAEL D. SULLIVAN
ELIZABETH C. KOCH
ASHLEY I. KISSINGER
JAMES E. GROSSBERG
AMY LEDOUX
CELESTE PHILLIPS
AUDREY BILLINGSLEY
SETH D. BERLIN
THOMAS CURLEY
JAY WARD BROWN
* ??
(202) 508-1100
* FACSIMILE (202) 861-9888
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: January 18, 2002
TOTAL PAGES: 8
Renata Hesse (202) 616-9937
(202) 307-1545
U.S. Department of Justice
FROM: Jay Ward Brown
DIRECT DIAL: (202) 508-1125
CLIENT/MATTER: 0223
REMARKS:
LEVINE SULLIVAN & KOCH, L.L.P.
1050 SEVENTEENTH STREET, NW
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
LEE LEVINE
CAMERON A. STRACHER
MICHAEL O. SILLIVAN
ELIZABETH C. KOCH
JAMES E. CROSSBERG
ASHLEY I. KISSINGER
CELESTE PHILLIPS
AMV LEDOUX
SETH D. BERLIN
AUDREY BILLINGSLEY
JAY WARD BROWN
THOMAS CURLEY
WRITERS' DIRECT DIAL
(202) 508-1110
(202) 508-1125
(202) 508-1100
FACSIMILE (202) 861-9888
* ??
January 18, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re:
United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Action No.
93-1232 (CKK) (D.DC);
State of New York ex. tel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al. v. 
Microsoft
Corporation, Civil
Action No, 98-1233 (CKK) (D.DC)
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(o) and the Notice of 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, 66 Fed. Reg. 59452 (Nov. 28, 2001), 
The New York Times, through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits 
the following comments relating to the revised proposed Final 
Judgment pending in the above-referenced matters.
    Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the 
"Tunney Act"), Microsoft Corporation 
("Microsoft") was required to file, within ten days of 
the filing of the revised proposed Final Judgment, "a 
description of any and all written or oral communications by or on 
behalf of [Microsoft], including any and all written or oral 
communications on behalf of [Microsoft], or other person, with any 
officer or employee of the United States concerning or relevant to 
such proposal." 15 U.S.C.  16(g). The only 
communications excepted from this requirement are those made by 
Microsoft's "counsel of record alone with the attorney general 
or the employees of the Department of Justice alone." Id.
    The revised proposed Final Judgment in the above-referenced 
actions was filed November 6, 2001. On December 10, 2001, Microsoft 
filed a "Description of Written or Oral Communications 
Concerning the Revised Proposed Final Judgment and Certification of 
Compliance Under 15 U.S.C.  16(g)" (the 
"disclosures"), a copy of which is enclosed for your 
convenience, that purports to satisfy the, Tunney Act's disclosure 
requirement.
    Microsoft's disclosures are insufficient for several reasons. 
First, with respect to the referenced October 5, 2001 meeting 
regarding "technical questions," Microsoft indicates 
that its counsel met with "representatives of the United 
States and the plaintiff States" but does not identify those 
"representatives" or the departments or agencies for 
which they work Moreover, although Microsoft indicates that Linda 
Averett, Michael Wallent, Robert Short and Chad Knowlton attended 
this meeting, it does not indicate what positions these persons hold 
at Microsoft or the purpose of their attendance at the meeting. Nor 
does Microsoft describe the substance of the October 5 
communications or indicate specifically where they took place.
    Similarly, with respect to the referenced meetings that occurred 
between September 27 and November 6, 2001, Microsoft has not 
disclosed the names of those counsel for Microsoft, the United 
States, and the plaintiff States who attended; 1 the specific dates 
and locations of those meetings; which of those meetings were 
attended by Professor Eric Green and Jonathan Marks; and which of 
those meetings were attended by Will Poole. Nor has Microsoft 
described in even the most cursory fashion the substance of any of 
these communications.
    1 This shortcoming is significant. As Senator Tunney explained, 
the "limited exception for attorneys representing the 
defendant who are of record in the judicial proceeding ... is 
designed to avoid interference with legitimate settlement 
negotiations between attorneys representing a defendant and Justice 
Department attorneys handling the litigation.... [T]he provision is 
not intended as a loophole for extensive lobbying activities by a 
horde of 'counsel of record."' 119 Cong. Rec. 3451 
(1973). The report on the Tunney Act issued by the House Committee 
on the Judiciary further clarifies that the limited exception to 
disclosure "distinguishes 'lawyering" contacts of 
defendants from their 'lobbying contacts."' H.R. 
Rep. No. 93-1463, at 9 (1974), reprinted m 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
6535, 6540, 1974 WL 11645.
    In addition, it appears that Microsoft may not have made all of 
the disclosures required. The only exception to the disclosure 
requirement is for communications between counsel for Microsoft 
alone and the attorney general or employees of the Department of 
Justice alone; any other communications between the government and 
Microsoft or others on Microsoft's behalf concerning or relevant to 
the disposition of these actions--even those in which no 
counsel participated--must be disclosed. See 15 U.S.C. 
 16(g). The communications disclosed by Microsoft appear 
to each involve its counsel of record. This fact, coupled with the 
absence of any meaningful description of the communications and the 
lack of any express disclaimer of the existence of communications 
with the government not involving counsel of record, renders it 
impossible to determine whether Microsoft has complied with Section 
16(g).
    According to the House Report, the Tunney Act was intended 
"'to encourage additional comment and 
response"' by the public to proposed consent decrees 
"'by providing more adequate notice to the 
public."' 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6538 (quoting S. Rep. No. 
93-298, at 5 (1973), reprinted in 9 Earl W. Kintner, The 
Legislative History of the Federal Antitrust Laws and Related 
Statutes 6598 (1984) ("Kintner")). "[E]ffective 
and meaningful public comment is also a goal." Id. (emphasis 
added). In addressing Section 16(g) specifically, the House Report 
emphasized that Congress "intend[ed] to provide affirmative 
legislative action supporting the fundamental principle restated by 
the Supreme Court ... [that it] 'is not only important that 
the Government and its employees in fact avoid practicing political 
justice, but it is-also critical that they appear to the public to 
be avoiding it if confidence in the system of representative 
Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent."' 
Id. (quoting United States Civil Serv. Comm'n v Nat'l Ass "n 
of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, 413 U.S. 548, 565 (1973)); see also 
Kintner, at 6600 ("antitrust violators wield great influence 
and economic power," and "additional comment and 
response" from the public would alleviate much of the 
"significant pressure" violators could often 
"bring ... to bear on government, and even on the courts, in 
connection with handling of consent decrees"). Indeed, when 
Senator Tunney first introduced his bill, he focused on the 
significance of the disclosure provision. "Sunlight is the 
best of disinfectants," he explained (quoting Justice 
Brandeis), and thus "sunlight ... is required in the case of 
lobbying activities attempting to influence the enforcement of the 
antitrust laws." 119 Cong. Rec. 3453. The disclosure provision 
was only slightly altered before passage, and the amendments were 
designed "to insure that no loopholes exist in the obligation 
to disclose all lobbying contacts made by defendants in antitrust 
cases culminating in a proposal for a consent decree .... 
"1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6543.
    The New York Times respectfully submits that Microsoft's 
disclosures are inadequate to serve these statutory purposes, i.e., 
to assure

[[Page 28748]]

the Court and the public that the parties agreed upon the revised 
proposed Final Judgment at arms length and without the exertion of 
any improper or undue influence. The public has a statutorily 
recognized right to information sufficient to make this 
determination. For this reason, The New York Times respectfully 
suggests that Microsoft should be required to supplement its 
disclosures to: (1) identify the location, date and, where possible, 
time of each communication; (2) identify the names and titles of all 
persons present for each communication; (3) state the purpose of the 
participation in each communication by those other than counsel of 
record; (4) describe the substance of each communication; (5) 
disclose any other required communications, if necessary; an (6) 
certify that there exist no further communications required to be 
disclosed. Sincerely,
    LEVINE SULLVAN & KOCH, L.L.P.
    By
    Lee Levine
    Jay Ward Brown
    Enclosure
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff,
    Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    v.
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    STATE OF NEW YORK ex. rel.
    Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, et al.,
    Plaintiffs,
    Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
    v.
    Next Court Deadline: March 4, 2002 Status Conference
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
    Defendant.
    DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION'S DESCRIPTION OF WRITTEN OR ORAL 
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT AND 
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE UNDER 15 U.S.C.  16(g)
    In conformance with. Section 2(g) of the Antitrust Procedures 
and Penalties Act ("APPA"), 15 U.S.C. 
 16(g), defendant Microsoft Corporation 
("Microsoft") respectfully submits the following 
description of "any and all written or oral communications by 
or on behalf of" Microsoft "with any officer or employee 
of the United States concerning or relevant to" the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment filed in these actions on November only 
"communications made by counsel of record alone with the 
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice 
alone."
    (1) Following the Court's Order dated September 27, 2001, and 
continuing through November 6, 2001, counsel for Microsoft met on a 
virtually daily basis with counsel for the United States and the 
plaintiff States in Washington, DC After the Court appointed 
Professor Eric Green of Boston University School of Law as mediator 
on October 12, 2001, Professor Green and his colleague Jonathan 
Marks participated in many of those meetings. From October 29, 2001 
through November 2, 2001, Will Poole, a Microsoft vice president, 
also participated in some of the meetings.
    (2) On October 5, 2001, counsel for Microsoft met with 
representatives of the United States and the plaintiff States in 
Washington, DC to answer a variety of technical questions. Linda 
Averett, Michael Wallent, Robert Short and Chad Knowlton of 
Microsoft attended this meeting, as did Professor Edward Felten of 
Princeton University, one of plaintiffs" technical experts. 
Microsoft certifies that, with this submission, it has complied with 
the requirements of 15 U.S.C.  16(g) and that this 
submission is a true and complete description of such communications 
known to Microsoft.
    Dated: Washington, D.C, December 10, 2001
    Respectfully submitted,
    William H. Neukom John L. Warden (Bar No. 222083)
    Thomas W. Burt Richard J. Urowsky
    David A. Heiner, Jr. Steven L. Holley
    Diane D'Arcangelo Michael Lacovara
    Christopher J. Meyers Richard C. Pepperman, II
    MICROSOFT CORPORATION Ronald J. Colombo
    One Microsoft Way SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
    Redmond, Washington 98052 125 Broad Street
    (425) 936-8080 New York, New York 10004
    (212) 558-4000
    Dan K. Webb
    WINSTON & STRAWN Bradley P. Smith (Bar No. 468060)
    35 West Wacker Drive SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
    Chicago, Illinois 60601 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    (312) 558-5600 Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 956-7500
    Charles F. Rule (Bar No. 370818)
    FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON Counsel for 
Defendant
    Microsoft Corporation
    1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Suite 800
    Washington, DC 20004-2505
    (202) 639-7300



MTC-00029784

James Hall
Attorney at Law
47 E. Wilson Bridge Road
Worthington, Ohio 43085-2301
Telephone: 614-885-3500
Fax. 614-527.18
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ash croft:
    I would like to start by saying that I am neither pro nor anti-
Microsoft. I do however believe in right and wrong. What the 
government has done to Microsoft over the past three years is 
definitely wrong. This letter is to show my support for the 
settlement that was reached with Microsoft. I do not support the 
settlement because I agree with it; I support it because it brings 
an end to one of the most absurd lawsuits I have ever seen.
    There was not a single reason why the government should have 
brought Microsoft to court at all. I do not agree with all of their 
practices, but they have never broken the law. I guess that does not 
matter when the competition of Microsoft spends more money lobbying 
to get them in trouble than it does on their own research and 
development. I suppose the competition can now rest easy in the fact 
that their money was well spent. Microsoft has agreed, just to get 
this madness over with, to not retaliate against the competition if 
they produce software that competes with Microsoft's. Let's examine 
the word "competition" American Heritage Dictionary as 
defines it: "the act of competing, as for profit or a prize 
rivalry". Microsoft took part in just that; they were 
competing for a profit. They made this profit, and did great things 
with it. Millions of dollars in profits were donated to charities 
other profits were used to establish scholarship funds for college 
students. Clearly Microsoft isn't some sort of evil corporation.
    We need to end this senselessness now. The lawsuit should never 
have been necessary in the first place.
    Sincerely,
    James Hall



MTC-00029785

January 27, 2002
FAX TO: ATTN: MS. RENATA B. HESSE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
202-307-1454
RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The proposed settlement is, I believe, fair and equitable for 
all concerned.
    . Microsoft will continue to provide new software that will 
integrate new products;
    . Competitors will have more Windows access to incorporate in 
their products,
    making them more compatible;
    . Software manufacturers will resume the creation of new 
products;
    . Consumers will have wider choices among software products; and
    . Investors will enjoy stability in the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    William F. Summerfield



MTC-00029786

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 give my approval to the agreement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This is a reasonable 
settlement for all and it is time to put this matter behind us and 
move on. I am somewhat irritated with the entire lawsuit, as the 
competitors of Microsoft are coming across as a bunch of whiners 
who, because they are not producing a quality product, cry and run 
to the government to ball them out instead of doing a better job at 
their own production and marketing.

[[Page 28749]]

    Be that as it may, Microsoft and the Justice Department worked 
out a fair agreement. Microsoft agreed to open the company up to 
more third parties making available more of its copyrighted code to 
aid in development of third party programs; Microsoft has agreed to 
disclosure various interfaces that are internal to Windows' 
operating system, and have agreed to a three person technical 
committee to oversee future compliance. This is more than enough.
    I urge you to give your support to this agreement and allow this 
country to get back to business.
    We desperately need to.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Duggan



MTC-00029787

Anthony Perrella
6017 Java Plum Lane
Garden Lake Estates
Bradenton, FL 34203
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my full support of the recent settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft in the antitrust 
case. The case has taken too long to settle and needs to be 
finalized to serve the best interests of the public.
    The terms of the settlement reflect the intense lobbying efforts 
on the part of Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft is agreeing to 
disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows operating system 
products--a first in an antitrust case. They have also agreed 
to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so 
that non-Microsoft products can be promoted more easily.
    It is time for your office to use its influence to press for an 
end to this matter. There are nine states out there looking to 
continue litigation, and it is my belief that your office should be 
active in suppressing this silly notion. Our nation cannot afford 
further litigation, and we need Microsoft back at full strength.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Perrella



MTC-00029788

20 B S Main Street Alburg, VT 05440
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I am writing to you today to voice my support for the Microsoft 
settlement. Three years have now passed since the beginning of this 
case During this time, much money has been wasted. Federal dollars 
have been squandered on court mediators and countless extensions. 
The settlement of this case then is a welcome end to the protracted 
??gation.
    The settlement that was reached is equitable Microsoft agrees to 
share with its competitors some of the workings of its operating 
system. This gives developers the freedom to design software that 
will be mereasingly compatible with the Windows system. While this 
is a large concession on behalf of Microsoft. I agree with 
Microsoft's support of the settlement. The settlement allows 
Microsoft to finally resolve this issue. Getting back to business is 
important to Microsoft.
    I agree with Microsoft's decision to settle this case. I believe 
that the terms of this agreement are fair. I hope that the Justice 
Department will enact this settlement as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Bayer



MTC-00029789

KerrAlbert
Office Supplies & Equipment
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Justice Department's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft 
has gone on for much too long, and I would like to express my 
support for the settlement that the two sides reached in November of 
last year. It is a fair compromise that will benefit all parties 
involved, and I would like to see it finalized in the near future.
    The government should not interfere with Microsoft simply 
because it is a successful company. Yet Microsoft has agreed to 
allow other independent companies new rights that will allow them to 
promote their own products (rather than Microsoft's) within the 
Windows operating system. Microsoft will not ?? against computer 
makers that choose to do this, and the result will be stronger 
competition in the industry. Once competition increases, consumers 
will have more to choose from, and the technology industry will 
receive a real boost.
    I believe the Justice Department made the right decision in 
settling this lawsuit. Microsoft can no go back to developing the 
types of ideas that have made it the successful company it is today, 
and the government can begin to focus its time and money on more 
important issues.



MTC-00029790

45 Springfield Street # 1
Belmont, MA 02478
January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my opinion about the 
settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice.
    First off, I am NOT 100% in Microsoft's camp. I have tried MANY 
of their competitors" products: very few are truly better when 
you take all of the real world factors into consideration. The 
pattern has been simple all along: Microsoft sees a product in the 
marketplace, imitates it until it is as good as the competing 
product, and then (now this is the KEY) they surpass their 
competitor's product. This is really the driving force behind the 
technicalities of the lawsuits. You cannot even imagine how much it 
disgusts me that companies are allowed to sue because another 
company bettered their product.
    If I were Bill Gates, I would be so outraged that ] would move 
Microsoft to Canada. I have consulted for EMC Corporation in Ireland 
so I know firsthand that the U.S. is losing ground as THE place to 
be for technology. If our court system continues to allow cases as 
outrageous as this, no business will want to set up shop here.
    Who's going to file a lawsuit next? Palm, Inc.? Well, I'm a 
registered Palm developer and if they file a lawsuit, guess who will 
be switching to Windows CE devices?
    I obviously think this case should have been thrown out of court 
on the first day, but since it was not, please just get it over with 
and APPROVE the settlement. Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    David M. McNamara



MTC-00029791

Raymond L. Barker, CPA
3967 Hancock Forest Trail,
Annadale, VA 22003
Telephone: 703473-6066
c-mail lbarkcr @ erols.com
Fax 703-208-0709
FAX COVER SHEET
From: Raymond L. Barker [Ibarker @ erols.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:10 AM
To: 
'mailto:microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov"
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement between DOJ and Microsoft should be settled. Each 
has affirmed that the settlement is hard but fair. To continue to go 
after Microsoft is counter-productive to our economy.
    The AOL suit is outrageous.
    Raymond L. Barker, CPA



MTC-00029793

8632 15th Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11228
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to urge you to give your approval to the 
Microsoft settlement. This would end three years of court battles 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The two parties 
have agreed to this agreement and I do not think it is the place of 
others to second-guess the decision
    The fact that a federal judge accepted it is also evidence of a 
settlement. It has gone on far too long. It is time to quit wasting 
taxpayers" money and put some of that money towards things 
that are needed more, like highways, schools, the environment.
    Microsoft has agreed to a great many of the terms demanded by 
Justice. There is internal interface disclose, computer-maker 
flexibility, granting computer makers new rights to configure 
Windows to promote non-Microsoft programs; there is an oversight 
committee. What more is there? Why should anyone work to make a 
company work, or invent something, if only to have to give it away? 
This whole lawsuit sets a very bad precedent.

[[Page 28750]]

    I urge you to let this decision stand and let us go forwards, 
not backwards.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley Hui
    PS: ?? a Corner, I can't be more ?? with ?? products. It's 
a great ??



MTC-00029794

ServComp
2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 600
Houston, Tx 77056
713/935-3600
713/935-3650 Fax
www.servcomp.net
FAX COVER PAGE
Attn: ATTORNEY GENE?? JOHN ASHCROFT
Company: US DEPT. OF ??
Phone No.: 202
Fax No.: 202 307 1454
From: Bob BEDD??FIELD
Company: SERVCOMP, INC.
Phone No: 713 935 3600 112
Fax No.: 713 935 3650
Date: 61 28 02
No. Pages: (Including Cover) 2
Message:
ServComp
2700 Post ?? Suit?? 400
713-935-3600
713-935-3650 fox
www.servcomp.com
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This lawsuit against Microsoft has gone on long enough. There 
are other Issues of greater Importance facing our county and there 
is now a settlement In place that will, hopefully, end the 
hostilities between our government and Microsoft.
    Often overlooked throughout the course of this contentious 
litigation is the fact that there are many other IT companies, that 
have built their businesses off of Microsoft's leadership and 
innovative products. While few, of these companies are dependent 
upon Microsoft, they are dependent upon a reasonable stability In 
the marketplace. This litigation has disturbed this stability.
    The strength of this settlement is that it focuses on remedies 
for the original issues and leaves Microsoft Intact. I am therefore 
writing in favor of this settlement, and hope that similar actions 
will not be brought in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Beddingfield
    Sales Director
    ServComp, Inc.
    2700 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 600
    Houston, TX 77056
    713-935-3600, ext. 112
    jrb @ servcomp.com



MTC-00029795

January 21, 2002
Attn Renata Hesse
US Department of Justice. Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    The opportunity to make commennts on the Microsoft annual 
lawsuit is much appreciated with the importance it carries for the 
economy. We would like to other our opinion for your consideration 
as you deliberate the proposed settlement of this case.
    As the owners of a wholesale plumbing supply company, we 
understand that government has a role in protecting consumers and 
businesses from monopolistic behavior. Although we were never 
supportive or the case against Microsoft, we acknowledge the Court 
of Appeals findings.
    To this end we believe that settlement is the best option for 
the economy and the high-tech industry.
    The key point in our minds in that settlement not only ends the 
suit, but it does accomoplish what the government set out to do; put 
a more watchful eye on Microsoft's business practices to ensure 
consumers are protected.
    What we have read about the details of the suit and the 
settlement talks us that the settlement that is on the table is a 
good compromise that gives the government what it is seeking. 
Microsoft some of what it wants, and the economy what it desperately 
needs. We hope your deliberations bring you to the same conclusion.
    Sincerely,
    John and Beverly Trimmell, Owners
    B & J Wholesale Plumbing Supply
    525 S Kansas Avenue
    Liberal, KS 67801



MTC-00029796

    To whom it may concern:
    I am responding to the proposed Microsoft settlement in 
accordance with the Tunney Act I was someone who has been an IT 
professional for the past seven years it disturbs me to learn that 
the proposed settlement will have no real affect on Microsoft and 
will not restore competition. It is imperative that a settlement to 
restrain Microsoft include:
    1. The equired publishing of API's, file formats, and other 
protocols to all developers. This is the only way to truly give 
independent soft-ware companies the ability to compete with 
Microsoft.
    2. Protection to OEM's that wish to load competitive software on 
their systems. This will allow OEM's to install the software that 
customers want.
    3. Full ??ricing disclosure from Microsoft on how much it 
charges OEM's for its products. This will allow consumers to make 
informed choices as to which products are the most cost effective 
solution.
    Thank you for you time.
    Mark King



MTC-00029797

January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft supporter, I would like to see this case 
concluded. I believe Microsoft has become powerful not by malicious 
intent, but because it makes a quality product that is reasonably 
priced.
    I do not agree with every decision that Microsoft has made in 
the past, but I understand the idea of aggressively marketing your 
own product. Either way, I do not agree with the allocation of 
scarce state and federal resources on problems that have already 
been solved.
    Under the settlement agreement, Microsoft has promised to change 
the way it develops, licenses, and markets its software. It has 
granted computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows to 
better promote non-Microsoft software on the Windows platform. Also, 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware 
developers who develop or promote software that competes with 
Windows. Microsoft has opened its inventions to the competition that 
would see that invention become obsolete. This goes against the very 
fundamentals of capitalism, but if it ends the case, then Microsoft 
is willing to concede.
    Although the settlement reaches further than Microsoft may have 
wished, Microsoft realizes that settling sooner is better than 
settling later. The longer that the case proceeds and innovation 
suffers, the greater the risk that American products may lose their 
competitive advantages in the world market. I am convinced that the 
only reason states would continue litigation would be an effort to 
appease Microsoft's competitors, rather than to protect consumers. 
Let's make sure that we don't lose our place as the world leader in 
the IT industry; let's end this debacle once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Randall Baxley



MTC-00029798

28 January 2002
The Attorney General, John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The issue, which should 
never have begun, has been dragged out long enough and it is time to 
put the issue to rest. A settlement is available and the government 
should accept it.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft gave in to many concessions in 
order to return to software design. They have agreed to give 
computer makers the flexibility to install and promote any software 
that they see fit, With no fear of retaliation, Microsoft has also 
agreed to license Microsoft software at a uniform price to computer 
makers no ma?? software the company decides to install or promote. 
Also Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreement that would 
obligate a computer maker to exclusively install or promote 
Microsoft software.
    Microsoft has given far too much in order to settle this issue. 
Microsoft and the technology industry need to move forward, arid the 
only way to move ahead is to put this issue behind us. In these 
days, we hear shouts of outrage that the government has not done 
more to bolster the airlines, Enron, K-Mart, and many other 
companies in financial trouble. It is truly outrageous that the 
government should do much to destroy one of the this country's most 
successful businesses.

[[Page 28751]]

    As unfair as it is to Microsoft, ask you to please accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Michael R. Yosko



MTC-00029800

7199 Bahne Road
Fairview, TN 37062
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We wanted to write to you today to express our dismay over the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. As Americans, we feel that this quit is 
contrary to the very ideals of Free trade and capitalism theft we 
treasure in this nation. It is our opinion that punishing a company 
or an individual for demonstrating the very cleverness and ingenuity 
upon which we have built this nation is un-American.
    Americans are unlike any other people in the world. It is our 
goal to became a success; to became something marc than our Fathers 
and grandfathers were: to start with nothing more than a good idea 
and a diligent work ethic and end up a success. This is the American 
dream, and it is this dream that is under attack in this suit.
    This litigation is not a question of whether or not Microsoft 
violated antitrust laws. It is a question of whet her or not we, as 
Americans, have the right to become successful without the 
interference of the government. We are pleased that this heinous 
suit has finally reached a conclusion that is satisfactory to all of 
the parties involved. However, it is our fondest wish that none of 
this unpleasant litigation had begun in the first place, Please keep 
the government out of the private sector. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Don Crohan
    Gayle Crohan



MTC-00029801

Robert Agness
608 Juanita Court
The Villages, FL 32159
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen who would like to see this process ended,
    I would like to ask for your approval of the proposed agreement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. This legal action appeared to 
have been punishment for not having given enough campaign 
contributions to the previous administration, which then led down 
the ridiculous path of Judge Jackson trying to break up Microsoft.
    It is time to come back down to earth and accept this more 
reasonable compromise without further legal action.
    The fact is that Microsoft has done more than any other company 
to move the PC industry forward over the last 20 years. With such 
advantageous terms, the Justice Department should finalize this deal 
and let this company continue to work toward further innovations. 
Considering Microsoft's flexibility of allowing non-Microsoft 
software programs to be placed on Windows, and offering to license 
intellectual property and access to its internal code, the 
competition should be quite pleased with this decision.
    It is time to end the arduous legal proceedings and get back to 
priorities. Please keep Microsoft intact and the software industry 
stabilized by moving forward with this plan. Thank you very much for 
your support.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Agness



MTC-00029802

FAX
DATE: 12802
TO: Renata Hesse, Dept of ??
 202, 616, 9937
FROM: Kim Waltman
Number of pages: (including cover sheet) 2
Please call 815-282-8053 if you do not receive all pages 
indicated.
Message:
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to you regarding you the Microsoft lawsuit. This 
lawsuit was brought against Microsoft by the federal government. 
During the course of this three-year lawsuit, the federal government 
has spent $30 million pursuing their case. The funding for the 
federal government's case comes from the taxpayers of this country.
    This case has had its day in court. And the Court of Appeals has 
ruled to do away with the lower courts' plan to break up the 
company. Let's put an end to the lawsuit. At this point, spending 
any additional taxpayer money would just be sending good money after 
bad. The proposed settlement agreement is the only logical solution.
    If this case is carried out any longer, it will only result in 
unnecessary increased expenses to consumers. I believe any 
additional public funds spent on this lawsuit are not being used for 
an appropriate cause. That is why I am asking that you move ahead 
with the settlement agreement without delay. The agreement will 
close the book on this overdone court case and allow us to move 
forward into the next century of technological advancements.
    Thank you for giving consideration to my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Kim Waltman
    Founder
    InSync Communications



MTC-00029803

10852 NORTH KENDALL DR # 208
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33176-3469
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    We are writing to show our support for the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It is of vital concern to this country that a climate of 
stability and support by established for American businesses to 
flourish, With the grave challenges facing America now, both in the 
domestic economy and around the world, self-destructive legal abuse 
is uncalled for.
    Microsoft has shown that it is willing to bend over backwards to 
reach a settlement that will help its partners and competitors 
perhaps more than itself. The settlement, whatever the effect it has 
on Microsoft, will greatly help the broader American technology 
industry. Software companies will be better able to have their 
products work with Microsoft's Windows operating system when 
Microsoft makes the code for the internal interfaces and server 
interoperability protocols that tie program together available. 
Computer manufacturers will have more flexibility to contract with 
other companies, like AOL Time Warner, RealNetworks, and Symantec to 
substitute their products for the program Microsoft includes in the 
standard Windows installation, such as internet Explorer. The 
American computer industry should benefit from the settlement I 
welcome your support and leadership for the settlement, Mr. Attorney 
General, The Federal Judge who will be deciding on the settlement 
should approve it in the best interests of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Axel Heimer



MTC-00029804

OnQuest Technologies, Inc
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Whatever might be said of this lawsuit against Microsoft, it is, 
in my opinion, good that the entire case has settled. Without 
necessarily taking sides on any of the issues explored during the 
court proceedings, at the very least it can be observed that the 
tone was contentious and unnecessarily inflammatory.
    All of this has apparently created a perceptible nervousness 
among consumers that has, in turn, adversely affected both sales of 
computer products, as well as the economy in general.
    I am therefore writing to convey my support of the settlement, 
as well as my hope that there will be no further federal action 
against Microsoft, or any other IT company. The settlement assures 
that Microsoft will commit to better business practices, and change 
its software to reflect that.
    Starting with the next release of Windows XP, Microsoft will 
make their software easier to use for non-Microsoft software 
developers, and Microsoft will even make it easier for developers, 
since Microsoft will release its interfaces and protocols to them so 
they can be more competitive.
    This really is more than a slap on the wrist; it's a whole new 
way of doing business.
    Sincerely,
    Luis Navarro
    President

[[Page 28752]]



MTC-00029805

January 28, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 1-202-307-1454
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter pertains to the recent settlement of the antitrust 
lawsuit between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am in 
favor of leaving the company as it is--NOT breaking it up. 
Let's accept the terms of the settlement and let Microsoft and the 
industry move forward.
    I support final adoption of the settlement as soon as possible. 
I feel the terms are reasonable and fair to all parties--they 
meet, or exert go beyond, the ruling by the Court of Appeals. This 
has been going on far too long.
    Helen M. Pickering
    3815 E. Funk Avenue
    Spokane, WA 99223



MTC-00029806

COLESYSTEMS
Business Applications
Networking Technologies
Software Development
Web Commerce
Training
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have always believed that it was a bit overzealous for our 
government to have actually reacted with a federal lawsuit against 
Microsoft simply because a few of Microsoft's competitors had 
suggested it. I agree that Microsoft may well have employed 
aggressive marketing and sales tactics, but these tactics had never 
risen to the level of needing federal court intervention. I worry 
more about any business that doesn't aggressively pursue sales.
    The IT business, by its very nature, is a very fluid business. 
Where one particular company may be dominant today, another will be 
tomorrow. It is incumbent upon all who hope to survive in the IT 
world to change with the current times and technologies. Any company 
that does not--even a company with the apparent invulnerability 
of Microsoft--will soon find itself relegated to yesterday's 
outmoded ideas. By the very nature of the IT business, therefore, 
Microsoft would have had to change to remain competitive. The 
limitations on Microsoft brought on by the settlement, such as 
disclosure about internal interfaces of Windows, will only make 
trade secrets public, and prepare IT engineers for the "next 
big thing."
    The irony here is that this lawsuit, and the subsequent 
settlement, only delayed what would have had to happen on its own 
anyway. I am hopeful that this marks the end of any federal action 
against Microsoft, or any other IT business.
    Sincerely,
    Ivan Cole
    Chief Technology Officer
    cc: Representative Jerrold Nadler
    174 Hudson Street
    New York NY 10013
    Phone: (212) 965 6400
    Fax: (212) 965 6401
    Toll Free: 888-COLESYS
    Web: http://wwwcolesys.com



MTC-00029807

David Millage
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Forty-First District
Statehouse (515) 281-3221
e-mail--dmillag @ legis.state.ia.us
HOME ADDRESS
3910 Aspen Hills Drive
Bettendorf, Iowa 52722
Home: (319) 332-8723
Office: (319) 388-8417
House of Representatives
State of Iowa
Seventy-Ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
?? 50319
COMMITTEES
Appropriations, Chair
Judiciary
Labor & Industrial Relations
State Government
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
202-616-9937
VIA FACSIMILE
    Ms. Hesse:
    Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller's leadership in the Microsoft 
antitrust case has caused many Iowans to track the situation with a 
watchful eye.
    According to the Wall Street Journal, Miller "was the one 
who originally cooked up the idea of a multi-state assault on 
Microsoft." (November 9. 2001) Regarding the case, Miller told 
the Journal, "Everyone knew it was high profile. This one was 
a no-"??rainer." (The same article on November 9, 2001.)
    I serve as Chair of the Iowa House Appropriations Committee and 
I am trying to solve the sizable budget deficit the State of Iowa is 
facing. I have publicly urged AG Miller to sign on to this 
settlement and bring this case to an end.
    The state is scraping for every dollar in a time of budget cuts, 
yet our state attorneys are spending staff time and money pursuing 
this case--that has not and likely will not bring anything back 
to our state. Thus far, Miller has claimed over $1.1 million in 
spending on the case. Of the 19 states involved when that claim was 
filed, only three states topped Iowa's spending, including much 
larger states like California and New York. According to the Wall 
Street Journal, Miller is a main reason several states are balking 
at a settlement, "...some state pols will stoop lower than 
others to latch onto a celebrated case in hopes of boosting their 
name recognition for future electoral ambitions. These antics might 
have been tolerated when the economy was stronger. but such 
frivolity looks conspicuously out of place after September 11. In 
light of the discovery that we have real enemies in the world, 
suffice it to say the Microsoft prosecution looks more myopic and 
perverse than ever."--Wall Street Journal.
    "Finally, A Settlement" Nov. 2.
    The hard-earned money of taxpayers can be better spent, and 
consumers will be no better off if this case are prolonged. At a 
time of belt-tightening all over the country, the attorneys general 
who remain on the case are acting like they have unlimited resources 
for an indefinite pursuit of an American business that anchors a 
sector of an already limping economy.
    Americans deserve fiscal responsibility from their government. 
Please We strong consideration to approving the settlement in this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    David Millage
    Iowa House of Representatives



MTC-00029808

Lon Anderson
REPUBLICAN CAUCUS STAFF
IOWA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE CAPITOL
Des Moines, Iowa 50309
(515) 281-5184
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    With utter consternation, I have watched my state attorney 
general continue to battle Microsoft on the issues raised in the 
current lawsuit pending with the U.S. Department of Justice. I'm not 
clear on his motives, given that 1owa is facing a severe budget 
crisis and the expenses of his continued crusade against Microsoft 
would be much better used to aid Iowans with their education and 
security budgets than it is to relentlessly pursue one of the most 
successful companies in the country.
    I'm always amazed when politicians like Tom Miller conveniently 
use lawsuits as a means to advance their own personal agenda at the 
expense of the taxpaying public they claim to represent. Anyone with 
any common sense realizes how ludicrous it is to continue this 
lawsuit when a settlement has been proposed that addresses the 
concerns raised in the original complaint.
    In my opinion, from its onset, this lawsuit was brought by 
jealous colleagues who are in awe of Bill Gates and his phenomenal 
capacity to invent and market his products. Isn't that what America 
is all about? In a few short years, Gates built one of the most 
successful and profitable companies in the world, which, by the way, 
made billions of dollars for investors across the globe. To portray 
this man as an evil to be "dealt with" is unfair and 
unwarranted. The Bill Gates and Microsoft legacy will be one that 
stands the test of time.
    Settle this nuisance lawsuit as quickly as possible so we can 
all get back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Lon Anderson
    Research Analyst



MTC-00029809

To,
The Department of Justice,

[[Page 28753]]

United States of America.
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Sub: Opinion on Microsoft settlement
    Since it has been proven in US court of justice that Microsoft 
Corporation has been unlawfully maintaining its monopoly, violating 
US competition laws. Being a software engineer for about 3 years now 
I have been in situations when I was a victim of the unlawful 
monopoly and hence, I would like to make a few suggestions and give 
possible solutions so that the fights and freedom of people like me 
is protected in the free market.
    Firstly, the judgment has overlooked an important aspect. All 
OEM's licensing Microsoft software should be made to provide an 
option without the Microsoft product. For e.g., An OEM selling 
desktop computers preinstalled with Microsoft Windows Operating 
System should give an option of a desktop without the Microsoft 
software. The rationale being "Why should a consumer who just 
wishes to buy a desktop computer be forced to have Microsoft 
software we-installed on it." Currently there is not a single 
portable computer (notebook) in the market which offers a option 
other than Microsoft Windows.
    Though its good to see nearly all clauses of the 
"Prohibited Conduct" talk about the Microsoft licensing 
policy in the section of the judgment. But, a very important aspect 
has been missed out: Currently Windows OS overwrites the Master Boot 
Record so that no other preinstalled operating system would be 
recognized. Microsoft should be asked to make changes to their OS so 
that it stops it intrusive behavior and thus making other OS to co-
exist on the same machine.
    Sincerely hoping that my comments would be helpful to the 
justice effort.
    Regards,
    JayaBharath Goluguri
    Texas Instruments Inc.
    P.O. Box 660199
    12500 TI Boulevard, MS 8723
    Ph: 972-978-6807(c)



MTC-00029810

    To the United States Department of Justice:
    Sub: Opinion on Microsoft settlement
    I am writing in response to the proposed settlement which is 
currently under the 60 day public comment period. I consider myself 
to be a person whom the outcome of this case will have a very 
significant effect. Since it has been proven in US court of justice 
that Microsoft Corporation has been unlawfully maintaining its 
monopoly, violating US competition laws. Being a software engineer 
for about 3 years now I have been in situations when I was a victim 
of the unlawful monopoly and hence, I would like to make a few 
suggestions and give possible solutions so that the rights and 
freedom of people like me are protected in the free market.
    Firstly, the judgment has overlooked an important aspect. All 
OEM's licensing Microsoft software should be made to provide an 
option without the Microsoft product. For e.g., An OEM selling 
desktop computers preinstalled with Microsoft Windows Operating 
System should give an option of a desktop without the Microsoft 
software. The rationale being "Why should a consumer who just 
wishes to buy a desktop computer be forced to have Microsoft 
software pre-installed on it." Currently there is not a single 
portable computer (notebook) in the market which offers a option 
other than Microsoft Windows.
    Microsoft has been using open standards in its products and then 
making some proprietary extensions and claiming all rights over it 
including closing the source of the so-far open protocol How can 
Microsoft claim trade secrecy for a protocol that is distributed 
over the Internet? For example the 'Kereberos" case.
    Microsoft makes it unable for prospective purchasers of its 
operating system to make informed judgments regarding 
interoperability with other operating systems in connection with 
their purchasing decisions. Also it overwrites MASTER BOOT RE CORD 
of all other previous OS's thus ensuring that user does not 
have access to his/her OS, other than WINDOWS. The fact is that now, 
Microsoft has a monopoly on not only operating systems, but also to 
a lesser degree, office software and web browsers. They have 
blatantly and obviously abused this monopoly in many cases over the 
years and it has to stop. The DOJ has made that very clear. However 
the penalties sought to be imposed nor the agreement between the DOJ 
and MICROSOFT do not properly address and punish MS for its judged 
illegal Monopoly. All communication standards and protocols and API, 
file system formats must be made open source so that all developers 
can effectively compete and produce more efficient software for the 
users who are currently forced into buying MS software by various 
illegal means.
    Sincerely hoping that my comments would be helpful to the 
justice effort.
    Regards,
    Ravi Shankar R Jagarapu
    University of Texas at Dallas
    2200 Waterview Pkwy, # 2125
    Richardson, TX 75080
    Ph: 972-437-2846



MTC-00029811

Tim Pawlenty
Majority Leader
District 38B
Dakota County
COMMITTEES: CHAIR, RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATION
Minnesota House of Representatives
January 28, 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:
    I applaud the leadership displayed by the Department of Justice 
and the nine Attorneys General for developing the proposed Microsoft 
settlement agreement that balances the protection of consumer 
interests and the competitive process.
    I believe that this settlement will preserve Microsoft's ability 
to innovate and engage in normal procompetitive activities, critical 
during our nation's current economic recession. At the same time, 
the settlement is a win for consumers, with its broad scope of 
prohibitions and obligations imposed on Microsoft. It will certainly 
require substantial changes in the way that Microsoft does business. 
It imposes significant costs on the company and entails an 
unprecedented degree of oversight. Furthermore, the agreement 
strikes an appropriate balance within the technology industry, 
providing opportunities and protections for firms seeking to compete 
while allowing Microsoft to continue to innovate and bring new 
technologies to market.
    This reasonable settlement will help consumers, the industry, 
and the economy to move forward.
    Very truly your,
    Tim Pawlenty
    Majority Leader



MTC-00029812

Raymond E Beal
300 E 27th St
Dover OH 44622
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of court battles Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice have reached a settlement regarding the anti-
trust stilt. I believe that the settlement will be beneficial to 
both the IT industry and the consumers alike. It is necessary that 
all those who are involved in this suit put aside their differences 
and work to put this issue behind them. I would like to go on record 
as being a staunch supporter of the settlement.
    This settlement went further than what Microsoft would have 
liked, but they believe that settling the case now is the right 
thing to do to help the industry and the economy move forward. The 
agreement is fair and reasonable, and was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations. The industry will be more competitive since Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against competitors who produce, promote 
and ship software that competes with Microsoft's.
    I am satisfied with this settlement since it is fair and 
reasonable to all parties involved.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Beal



MTC-00029813

Stephen and Diane Walter
1460 Mills Court
Menlo Park, CA 94025
28 January 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-001
Fax: 1-202-307-1454
1-202-616-9937
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    We urge the Department of Justice to withdraw its consent to the 
revised proposed Final Judgment. The agreement, as it now stands, 
will allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly to most if not all 
aspects of

[[Page 28754]]

computing. The new settlement allows firms better access to APIs 
necessary to work with Windows, which only reinforces the Windows 
monopoly.
    We ask that you (1) restrict Microsoft's practice of forcing 
Internet Explorer in contractual tying, (2) restrict their practice 
of giving favorable Windows pricing deals to OEMs, (3) require 
Microsoft to allow users to remove icons from Windows desktops, (4) 
restrict Microsoft's bundling of middleware to force its monopoly, 
(5) re-insert the source code licensing provision of the 2000 DOJ 
settlement, and (6) allow OEMs to modify Windows to add features.
    As you are aware, it is small business that its the fire of the 
US economy. By allowing Microsoft to extend its monopoly as your 
proposed agreement will do, you are in essence a{time} lowing them 
to continue chasing small companies out of business. Microsoft 
tolerates NO competition--no matter how small, Please, please 
take this shark out of the waters of our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Diane Walter



MTC-00029814

632 Khyber Lane
Venice, FL 34293
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The nine plaintiff states in the Microsoft antitrust case who 
are seeking to overturn the settlement reached last November are 
claiming to act in the best interest of the public. They are 
mistaken. I do not understand the intricacies of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. but I do know that extended litigation would be 
anything but beneficial to the consumer. I do not believe it is 
necessary to continue litigation at this point. Extended suit can 
only result in wasted time and money.
    The settlement is reasonable. Microsoft will be allowed to 
remain intact, and it will also retain control over its software, 
but it will be required to give its competitors access to various 
parts of Microsoft technology and to refrain from monopolistic 
actions. For example, Microsoft will not be permitted to enter into 
any contracts that would require a third party to distribute 
Microsoft software either exclusively or at a fixed percentage.
    It is wrong for States to attack Microsoft under the guise of 
protecting the consumer. Consumers benefited from Microsoft's 
developments & marketing. Allowing these nine states to cause 
the existing ruling to be overturned will only result in expensive 
litigation, which is contrary to the best interest of consumers.
    Thank for your consideration.
    Kenneth Twigg



MTC-00029815

620 Terrace Place
Norman, OK 73069-5037
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I completely disagree with the last three years of litigation 
against Microsoft. The government has no right to keep messing 
around with private enterprise and it stands to reason why the 
economy took a turn for the worst when America's number one company 
is a victim of lawsuits brought on by the Attorney General and 
Microsoft's competitors.
    The terms of the settlement are not fair as they force Microsoft 
to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows" operating 
system products. They also force Microsoft to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows so that competitors can more 
easily promote their own products.
    Although the terms of settlement are not fully justified, I urge 
your office to implement it as soon as possible, because our economy 
cannot afford further litigation against it. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Glen Bell
    cc: Senator Don Nickles
    Representative J.C. Watts, Jr.



MTC-00029816

decisionmarkTM
818 Dows Rd. S.E., Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52403-7000
Phone: 319-365-5597
Fax: 319-365-5694
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It is no secret that one of the reasons that Microsoft has 
succeeded is that the federal government has had very little control 
over the technology industry. Over-regulating this industry will 
slow progress.
    Technology has fueled the current economic expansion and we 
should be looking to preserve its status rather than take it down. 
As a regular consumer of high technology products, I enjoy the 
benefits of a free and competitive market prices are affordable, the 
products are of high quality, and the rate of development is the 
fastest of any market in the world.
    There is now an agreement between the opposing parties in this 
case that designates a fair system of checks and balances. 
Additionally, it sets out a plan to monitor future activities and a 
technology committee to enforce them.
    Resolving this case once and for all is not only beneficial to 
the courts and all participants, but also to the marketplace, t hope 
you will accept this fair agreement.
    Sincerely,
    David Cechota
    2311 Bever Ave SE
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52403



MTC-00029817

Carolyn Sergel
3100 Springdale Boulevard
Lake Worth, Florida 33461
January. 22, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the US department of Justice. Although I think the 
lawsuits have dragged on too long to date, I am happy to see a 
settlement has been reached. I am confident that the settlement will 
serve the public's best interests and protect the consumer.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair. Microsoft will 
be forced to document its Windows interface codes for competitors. 
It will also be monitored by a special "Technical 
Committee" that will make sure that it stays within the bounds 
of the settlement.
    Our nation cannot afford to continue litigation on fids issue. 
For the sake of our IT sector and economy, please finalize the 
settlement. Microsoft needs to focus on business, not politics.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Sergel



MTC-00029818

4040 Lake Forest Drive W
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
January 2.5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to ask the Department of Justice to accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement The suit by AOL that Microsoft has 
violated antitrust laws is outrageously beyond my reasonable 
imagination. Microsoft has done nothing wrong and both companies 
should work together as well as on a competitive bases to improve 
the benefit of end customers. It is absolutely bad idea for both 
companies and the government to spend their resources for nothing. A 
settlement is in place and the terms are fair, I would like to see 
the government accept it.
    I believe the settlements by Microsoft are more than I could 
think of as a private company could endure. At the same time, the 
Justice Department should use its resources from tax dollars in more 
productive ways for the consumers than harassing Microsoft as a 
company.
    Sincerely,
    Seha Son



MTC-00029819

January 24. 2002
Attorney General ,John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion m regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached m November. I favor Microsoft 
and support the settlement that was reached by Microsoft and the 
DOJ. I am anxious to see an end to the costly litigation that has 
gone on for throe years. Microsoft has agreed to all terms and 
conditions of this agreement, and will be monitored by the

[[Page 28755]]

government to ensure, compliance with the agreement Under this 
agreement, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs that. compete with programs 
included within Windows. Microsoft has also agreed to disclose 
information about. various internal interfaces in Windows. This 
litigation is costly and a waste of time. I urge you to support this 
settlement so Microsoft. can be free to design and market its 
innovative software, which will benefit our society. Thank you for 
your support. Sincerely,
    Roger Perer??
    3616 Spokeshave Lane
    Matthews, NC 28105



MTC-00029820

Fax Cover Sheet
James and Christianna Downs
3624 Thai Road
Titusville, FL 32796-4017
(321) 267-2485
1-202-307-1454
Supporting comments regarding current Microsoft settlement issue.
James and Christianna Downs
3624 Thai Road
Titusville, FL 32796
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing you today in regards to the Microsoft settlement 
issue, We support the settlement that was reached in November and 
feel that this costly dispute has gone on too long. Further pursuit 
of Microsoft will cement the impression held by stockholders that 
our government is simply conducting a harassment program, Shame on 
those responsible!
    The current settlement is thorough and complete. Microsoft has 
agreed to share more information with other companies and give 
consumers more choices. Microsoft has agreed to disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows' 
operating system products.
    Microsoft has also agreed to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows in order to promote non-Microsoft 
software programs that compete with programs included within 
Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by 
which consumers access various features of Windows, such as 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media Player, and 
Windows Messenger.
    Unfortunately for stockholders, this settlement will benefit 
companies attempting to compete with Microsoft. We accept that 
consequence, as this settlement will benefit consumers and will be 
good for stimulating our lagging economy. Please support this 
.settlement so our precious resources can be funneled into more 
pressing issues. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    James and Christianna Downs



MTC-00029821

The Seale Group, Inc.
The Source for Developer Training
January 28, 2002
8601 Dunwoody Place Suite 310
A??anta, Georg?? 30350
(770) 992-4888
FAX (770) 992-1296
www.seste.com
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The government's case against Microsoft quickly degenerated into 
such a war of rhetoric that it became impossible to decipher the 
real issues. It is my opinion that the government has badly 
misunderstood the free market concept of employing aggressive 
marketing techniques over and against its contention that Microsoft 
was in any way attempting to create an atmosphere of unfair 
competition.
    However, now that the case has entered into the settlement 
phase, these questions will remain unresolved. I am writing to 
suggest that the settlement itself is a decidedly better option than 
the continuation of the litigation. However, I may have some 
misgivings over some of the more salient terms of the settlement, 
particularly the provisos for information and divulging of 
intellectual property.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Seale President



MTC-00029822

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter will acknowledge my support for the settlement 
reached by the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corp.
    Realizing the time and expense involved, there does not appear 
to be further reason to expend any more taxpayer money on an already 
long drawn out process. This case appears to have been thoroughly 
litigated and attempts by competitors to influence judicial review 
appear unfounded and contrary to the best interests of the consumer.
    Thank you for the chance to express my view of this very 
important issue.
    Sincerely,
    Susan B. Sweetland
    Account Executive
    Fax: 202 616-9937



MTC-00029823

RE: Microsoft Settlement
January, 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    While my business has not been adversely affected by this 
lawsuit against Microsoft, had it continued to its anticipated 
bitter end, I cannot help but think that all IT businesses would 
somehow have been hurt.
    There is a perception that Microsoft had grown a little too big 
and successful for its own good. Adding to that perception is the 
allegation that they had treated much of their customer base (the 
OEMs) with a certain amount of undue, over-protective suspicion. 
However, this has more than adequately addressed in the settlement, 
and the settlement has ample protections figured into it.
    It is good on several levels that there has been a settlement. 
While in a few areas, the settlement goes beyond the lawsuit, it 
does address the initial concerns leveled at Microsoft by their 
competitors. I am writing to express my support for this settlement, 
and hope that with it the IT community, can resume business in a 
more normal fashion.
    Sincerely,
    Walter A. Householder
    President
    cc: Representative left Flake Microsoft
    SUITE 400 2999 NORTH 44th STREET, PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85018 
602.840.4750 FAX 602.840.5250 WWW.KDC-PHOENIX.COM



MTC-00029824

595 Providence Street
Everett, PA 15537
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This correspondence is to show my support for the proposed 
settlement that has been reached between the Justice Department and 
Microsoft. The litigation has lasted for over three years, and the 
time has come to worry more about our slumping economy than a 
company who has been vital to the economy.
    It is nice to see that the government and Microsoft both 
realized that the best way to stop a recession is to attack the 
problem at its source. As soon as the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft was announced, the market started to dive. The longer the 
litigation lasted, the lower our economy sunk. The settlement will 
allow the IT industry to be more competitive, and Microsoft will 
have to work closer with their competitors. They will actually share 
information and source code to their products just so their 
competitors can make products that are compatible with Microsoft's.
    All in all, this settlement is the best thing that could have 
happened, and I support it all the way.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Robert Harclerode



MTC-00029825

Charles H. Schaaf Jr.
4900 Southwest 31st Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In the interest of ending this costly litigation, I would like 
to ask for your support

[[Page 28756]]

of the pending settlement with Microsoft Corporation. This case has 
been motivated by states that want to protect their weakened 
software businesses, which would seem antithetical to America's 
purported belief in the free market system. The case should be 
wrapped up at the earliest opportunity.
    This agreement is a very good one for the competition, as 
Microsoft has made several gestures to encourage more competition in 
the industry, even surpassing some of the government's initial 
complaints. They will allow computer makers to receive universal 
terms and conditions on licensing the Windows operating system, 
while working without any contractual quotas to distribute or 
promote their technologies. Additionally, the broader rights of 
these companies to offer non-Microsoft software will enable software 
developers plenty of opportunities to gain a bigger share of the PC 
market.
    In light of the ongoing struggles of the U.S. technology sector, 
it is time to accept this deal and get these companies back to 
business. Any further action would only postpone a solution and cost 
taxpayers more government time and money. I thank you for your 
support.
    I wonder if all the lawsuits that American businesses have to 
put up with will ruin our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Schaaf



MTC-00029826

2516 NE 37th Drive
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I avidly support the Microsoft Corporation and have so for many 
years. Thus, the federal case against Microsoft over antitrust laws 
met me with trepidation. I do not believe that the federal 
government was justified in enacting the outdated antitrust laws 
against Microsoft. Despite this, however, the settlement that was 
reached in November is suitable in that it ends the negotiation 
process.
    Microsoft has made many concessions in an attempt to end this 
process. Microsoft has agreed to disclose much of the internal 
information regarding the design of Windows. Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose both the protocols and the design interfaces of the Windows 
system to its competitors on reasonable grounds. Now Microsoft 
competitors can access this information when designing software. The 
software designed from information sharing should result in products 
that are compatible.
    Microsoft has done enough. They have complied with all the terms 
of the federal government. I believe it is time to put this issue to 
rest once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Wynn Courtney



MTC-00029827

1001 NW 63rd Street Suite 280
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
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 support the implementation of the recent 
settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. 
There is no sense in continuing litigation a against a company that 
is the only bright in our sorry economy. I do not think the lawsuit 
should have begun in the first place. Microsoft has made a good 
offer and the rune states opposing the settlement should accept it. 
Microsoft is giving away technological secrets, granting broad new 
rights to computer makers to configure. Windows so as to make it 
easier for non-Microsoft products to be promoted, and a three-person 
team will monitor compliance with settlement.
    I urge your office to finalize the settlement and to make sure 
that further unnecessary lawsuits against Microsoft do not occur. 
Thank you. My losses in the stock market during the past year have 
been in excess of $2,000,000 and Microsoft is the only bright spot I 
have left in my technology portfolio, I urge you to get this lawsuit 
settled and allow Microsoft to work on behalf or the stockholders 
and America.
    Sincerely,
    George Platt
    CC: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00029828

STRUCTURAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Contractors/Construction Managers
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: (202) 616-9937
Re: United States vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    I believe that the proposed consent decree between Microsoft and 
the U.S. Department of Justice provides a fair settlement of this 
case.
    I support the settlement because I believe it is in my best 
interest as a software user, both Microsoft and other.
    Sincerely,
    Larry M. Ike
    Controller
    5903 Fisher Road ?? East Syracuse, New York 13057 ?? Phone: 
(315) 463-0001 ?? Fax (315) 432-0795 ?? E-mail: 
info @ structuralassociates.com
    Regional Office: PO Box 43968 ?? 7939 Honeygo Blvd., Suite 226 
?? Baltimore, Maryland 21236
    Phone: (410) 931-0905 ?? Fax (410) 931-0135 ?? E-
mail: bill @ graytechnologies.com



MTC-00029829

MASTERMAN ADVOCATES
Beth J. Masterman, Esq.
4 Philbrook Terra??e
Lexington, Massachusetts 02421
Telephone: (617) 227-9404
Fax: (781) 863-8550
BJM @ mastermanadvocat??.com
Publi?? Consulting and Legal Services
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice seems inadequate in resolving Microsoft's monopoly of the 
market. The settlement may serve to promote further monopolies for 
Microsoft in web services and other related products. This 
settlement does not sufficiently protect competitors against 
predatory pricing and does not protect consumer choice. The 
unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia against Microsoft should warrant a strong remedy and this 
settlement does not meet those standards. Microsoft's violation of 
federal antitrust is no longer an issue it is time that they are 
held accountable for their questionable practice& It is time 
that we find a remedy that meets the appellate court's standard to 
"terminate the monopoly, deny Microsoft the fruits of its past 
statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive 
activity." This proposed settlement fails to do so.
    The settlement says that Microsoft "shall not enter into 
any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to develop or 
distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's products. 
However another provision permits those payments and deals when they 
are "reasonably necessary." The ultimate arbiter of when 
these deals would be "reasonably necessary?" Microsoft. 
The settlement does not go far enough to provide greater consumer 
choice, and leaves Microsoft in a position that it can continue to 
charge whatever it wants for its products. Consumers should be 
protected from these types of practices Enforcing federal antitrust 
laws is vital to maintaining the integrity of free markets. It is 
Important that we continue to enforce them to protect tile welfare 
of consumers and the fundamentals that contribute to what makes our 
country's industries great.
    I appreciate you taking your time to examine this important 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Both Masterman
    President
    Masterman Advocates
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney General Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts



MTC-00029830

O'Sullivan & Associates
333 Victory Road
Quincy, MA 02171
U.S. v Microsoft
January 28, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
C/O Ms. Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 28757]]

    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, also called the 
Tunney Act, was passed to insure that competition and consumer 
choice continue in the marketplace. With regard to Microsoft, 
neither competition nor consumer choice seems to be a concern.
    Manufacturers of computers are hamstrung as are those who use 
computers because they cannot install the software they prefer on 
their computers. Instead Microsoft, which has become a monopoly in 
this arena dictates what may be used. Software developers need to 
have complete information about Microsoft's operating system so that 
they can compete creating a competitive market.
    Included among the concerns I have in looking at the remedy are:
    -Microsoft will be permitted to expand its control by 
bolting applications to Windows using a "commingling 
code". This violates antitrust law.
    -Some of the future applications which will undoubtedly be 
included are: financial, cable services as well as an expanded use 
of the internet.
    -Microsoft is required to share technical information 
concerning Windows. The catch is that Microsoft itself will 
determine if there is any possible situation where its security or 
software licensing may be compromised. The likelihood that Microsoft 
will use this option is very high.
    -The manufacturers' concern is that Microsoft will have 
access to its intellectual properties by virtue of doing business 
with the software giant.
    -Microsoft will make decisions concerned with which 
companies it will share technical information as called for m the 
settlement. There is a clause indicating that sharing information 
must be reasonably necessary.
    -A three person technical committee will be set up to hear 
violations.
    -It is highly unlikely that a company will take on the 
giant when it could lose the challenge and risk retaliation in the 
future.
    -One of the three people on the committee is appointed by 
Microsoft; one by the Department of Justice and the third must be an 
individual who will be agreed to by both Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. This arrangement gives an interesting 
advantage to Microsoft.
    -The findings may not be admitted into court in 
enforcement proceedings. Additionally the compliance is for only 
five years.
    For the most part after all the years of investigating and 
litigating there will be little or no change in the way Microsoft 
does business. I appreciate your interest in tiffs matter. If there 
is any way with which I may be of assistance, please contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Paul J. O'Sullivan
    CC: Tom Reilly



MTC-00029831

Gregory & Associates
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that the 
settlement, made virtually no impact on protecting consumers from 
companies like Microsoft who have monopolies in the marketplace.
    The settlement has many loopholes and its level of enforcement 
is questionable, this does not provide consumers the level of 
protection they need for greater consumer choice. In addition the 
settlement leaves Microsoft in a position to continually raise 
prices for their products. It is my understanding that many consumer 
groups have opposed the settlement.
    The agreement states that Microsoft "shall not enter into 
any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to develop or 
distribute software that would compete with their products, but it 
is Microsoft that will be the final decision maker on that 
provision. The agreement also states that Microsoft must share 
certain technical information, but only if it would not harm the 
company's security or software licensing. Again, Microsoft will be 
the final decision maker regarding this matter. The settlement does 
nothing to deal with the effects on consumers and businesses of 
technologies such as Microsoft's Passport.
    The enforcement of the settlement is questionable at best. The 
three person technical committee that will be assigned to monitor 
any violations made by Microsoft of the agreement is comprised half 
of people selected by Microsoft, and if any violations are found, 
the work of the committee cannot be admitted into court.
    I find these inadequacies to be too broad to accept this 
settlement. I hope that Microsoft will not be able to continue to 
preserve its monopoly while consumers and competitors are subject to 
the practices that are supposed to be protected by antitrust laws.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    CC: Attorney General, Tom Reily
    77 North Washington Street
    Boston, MA 02114.1908
    Phone 617.367.6449
    Fax 617.367.6299
    Email chris.gregory@neec.org



MTC-00029832

TO: Microsoft
From: ??tore Val??
Date: 1/28/02 
P??: ?? will do ?? possible to help Microsoft ?? believe in 
Microsoft and the Company Philo??ply.
Salvatore Volvo
101 N Woodland Ridge
Elma, NY 14059
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give my support to the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This litigation has gone on 
long enough, and it is time to settle this matter. The basis of the 
suit is that Microsoft excluded other companies from competition. 
However, whenever I have gone into a store, I have had any number of 
choices. I chose Microsoft because it worked. The competition could 
not produce the same quality product; hence, the public chose the 
product that worked for them. This is the basis for all free market 
philosophy, which is really what the antitrust suit was against.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has more than acceded to the demands of 
the Department of Justice. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer 
makers to ship non-Microsoft products to its customers; Microsoft 
has agreed to help companies achieve a greater degree of 
compatibility with regard to their networking software; axed 
Microsoft has agreed to gram computer makers broad new license to 
make Windows promote non-Microsoft software programs. Ultimately, 
the company agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products 
that were at issue in the original suit.
    Further litigation will only hinder our progress in this 
direction. Let Microsoft, and the country, get back to work.
    Sincerely,
    Salvatore Valvo



MTC-00029833

FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE: 28 JAN TIME:
TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
LOCATION:
LOCATION:
FAX#: 1-202-616-9937
FAX#:
MESSAGE:
PHONE#:
Dennis C. Deggett
383 Center Road
Lopez Island, WA 98281-8298
January 28, 2002
Attorney General Jon Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settelment. The issue was brought 
about the former administration that simply did not understand the 
technology industry. They ignored one of the things that makes this 
country the best in the world, our free enterprise system, Then to 
top it all off, they extended their socialistic philosophy to apply 
antiquated antitrust laws to a brand new industry.
    In the free market, Microsoft rose to the top because they had 
the best products. Their products are user friendly and Microsoft 
has made them very easy to Integrate and at lower cost than the 
alternitives. It is no wonder that where people had a choice most 
choose Microsoft software. Under the terms of the settelment 
Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers the flexability to 
install and promote any software they see fit. Microsoft has also 
agreed not to enter into any agreement that would require a computer 
maker to use a fixed percentage of Microsoft software. I beleive 
that computer makers will

[[Page 28758]]

continue to predominatly preinstall Microsoft software becuase it is 
the best and most computer buyers will choose a Microsoft Windows 
based computer when making a new purchase. This is not a monopoly 
problem, Microsoft simply is, supplying a better product and most 
people know it.
    My experiance as supervisor of an electric power generation 
plant for over 15 years, offered me the oppertunity to try many 
brand, of computer software products and computer equipment. What I 
found over time was that even when cost was not a consideration, 
products that were not Microsoft based, did not perform 
satisfactorly. Microsoft products and windows based computers were 
simply the best. On top of that we experienced signifig??nt savings 
over other options. Sure Microsoft has made a lot of money, but can 
you imagine the cost to the people of our nation if Microsoft and 
all they have provided for us vanished or had never existed? This is 
my plea for justice in our mechanized and technolgical society.
    Microsoft has gotten to where they are by developing better 
products, not by crushing their competitors. This suit and the fact 
It has gone on for over three years Is simply mind-booling. It is 
time to end It. DO NOT PUNISH MICROSOFT FOR BEING BETTER. Please 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settelment.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis C. Daggett



MTC-00029834

THE WASHINGTON COURT HOTEL
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Renata Hess
FROM: Joe Wiegand
FAX NUMBER: 202-616-9937 OR 202-307-1454 
DATE: 1-28-02
COMPANY: Dept of Justice
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2
PHONE NUMBER: RE: Microsoft Settlement
NOTES/COMMENTS:
Attorney Renata Hesse
Justice Department
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I am certain that you are receiving many letters of comment 
regarding the Microsoft settlement with the Justice Department. Your 
time is greatly appreciated.
    It was 1998 when the government first brought its anti-trust 
suit against Microsoft. In the years since then we have witnessed 
truly astounding developments in our industry. Laptops are thinner 
and more reliable, email is a communications device many Americans 
depend on, and many of us are speeding across the Internet at speeds 
not thought possible four years ago. These innovations are truly 
amazing and beneficial to our daily lives. These new products and 
ideas came about because of the competitive free market system we 
live in, not because the government was directing it behind the 
scenes.
    The circumstances of our current economy and the government's 
anti-trust case have truly stifled new growth in this industry. As 
our country's economy is struggling to find its way toward positive 
growth again, settling the anti-trust suit can only be viewed as a 
benefit. Please work to make sure this settlement is agreed to.
    Sincerely, ??
    32486 White Street??
    Ki??bland, ?? 60146
    815-522-3801



MTC-00029835

microsoft settlement
Subject: microsoft settlement
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 15:46:14-0500
From: Frank Lastner 
To: microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
    Microsofts efforts in the computer field have been invaliable to 
th U.S. Their inovations, systems and marking kept prices falling 
until the Government intervention. Close the books on litigation and 
help get the economy moving again.
    Frank Lastner
    16 Stillway CT.
    Hunt Valley Md. 21030



MTC-00029836

Fax Transmission
The Sack Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 528
3302 Zell Miller Parkway
Statesboro, Georgia 30459
Phone: 912.871.8771
Fax: 912.681.6001
TO:
Date: 1/28/02 
Fax Number: 202-307-1454
Pages: 2 pages, including this cover sheet
From: Albert Roesel
Subject:
Comments:
"A Standard of Excellence"
The Sack Company, Inc.
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    I am writing to express my support of the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement agreement. I am in favor of this case settling. As a 
fellow entrepreneur, I sympathize with the position of Bill Gates. I 
believe Microsoft should be free to conduct its business with 
limited government intervention. Notwithstanding my opposition to 
the lawsuit, the terms of the settlement agreement are reasonable. 
Microsoft has made many concessions in the interest of settling this 
case. Microsoft has agreed not to take retaliatory action against 
those who promote software that competes with Windows. They also 
agreed not to enter into agreement obligating third parties to 
exclusively distribute Windows. These types of concessions should 
put to rest the complaints of anticompetitive behavior on 
Microsoft's part.
    I am happy of see that the current Department of Justice has 
made the wise decision to settle this case. I appreciate your review 
of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Roesel
    Chairman of the Board



MTC-00029837

Microsoft Corporation
123 Wright Brothers Drive
Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Microsoft
Tel 801 257 6300
Fax 801 257 6501
http://www.microsoft.com/
January 26, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Penna. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear AG Ashcroft,
    I believe that your decision to settle this Microsoft suit was a 
wise one. Anytime that our government takes upon itself the rather 
extreme position of suing a private business is serious indeed. It 
is important for our government to encourage innovation and 
creativity through incentives, rather than discouraging them through 
convoluted, politically expedient lawsuits. It seems as if this case 
may have had less actual legal merit than it first appeared. In 
these days, we should remain especially vigilant at concentrating on 
far more important issues like national security and budgetary 
problems. It is good for us to settle this case and move on to these 
more important matters. The settlement does an excellent job of 
answering for all the problems that competitors brought against 
Microsoft. By allowing manufacturers their own say in how to 
configure Windows and competitors more access to source code that 
will improve their programs' ability to operate in Windows, 
Microsoft is going well beyond what has been asked of them.
    Thank you for your foresight and wisdom in this matter and thank 
you for taking the time to review my opinion in this matter. It is 
about time for the Justice Department ask the people who will be 
most affected by this decision how it will impact them.
    Sincerely,
    Clark Spencer
    Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer,



MTC-00029838

STRATFORD
3737 Glenwood Ave.
Sutre 100
Raleigh: NG 27612
Tele: (919) 573-6102
Fax: (919) 573-6026
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D, Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I understand that the federal courts are now reviewing the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I further 
understand that the government is collecting public comment on that 
issue.
    My comment is simple: Accept the settlement and help get this 
country back to work. A lengthy, expensive lawsuit contributes 
nothing to our nation's economic prosperity. Unwise government 
interference in the marketplace contributes nothing to economic 
growth--in fact) it hurts growth. And the Microsoft lawsuit has 
hurt our nation's economy, make no mistake about it.

[[Page 28759]]

    The marketplace, not the courtroom, is where these issues should 
have been decided. Those who are concerned by Microsoft's dominance 
of its market should remember other industry leaders that no longer 
lead: Apple and Tandy in computer manufacturing; Kodak and 3M in 
copiers, and CompuServe m online services.
    A market leader that fails Is satisfy its customers will remain 
a leader no longer. Microsoft will remain a leader if and only if it 
continues to provide new services and lower costs. That is where its 
competitors should seek to replace Microsoft, not through the 
courtroom.
    The government should not file antitrust lawsuits simply because 
a company is dominant in its market or because competitors cry foul. 
Yes, Microsoft plays hardball. But nothing in this long and costly 
lawsuit has established that the consumer--the most important 
person in this proceeding--has been damaged by anything 
Microsoft has done. In fact, the consumer has been the big winner. 
If this settlement is approved, the consumer will again be the big 
winner--as will the entire American economy.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Ciao
    Introduction ?? in from sources ?? it not ?? by ?? and is 
subjects to change in ??, cor??, ?? and ?? or withdrawal without 
notice



MTC-00029839

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the government accounts representative for Comark, a leading 
regional tech firm, I am thrilled that the long awaited settlement 
between Microsoft and thee federal government is finally at hand. 
All we need now is for the Judge to approve the settlement. The 
Judge, in my opinion, has more than ample reason to do just that.
    First of all, let me say how well I believe that government and 
business can work together for mutual prosperity. It can and does 
happen--EVERY DAY! I see it when I call on governmental 
agencies, officials and departments.
    I enjoy using technology to build a bridge between government 
and business. It makes perfect sense. After all, the emerging 
technologies of today make every segment of society more 
productive--it makes no difference if the end user works for 
the public good or a private interest. Let's forge ahead and 
revitalize the American economy. Let's renew our commitment to 
research and development, so that we continue to lead the world in 
productivity and quality. Let's create a new spirit of cooperation 
between the government and private enterprise. Let's show the rest 
of the world that American don't take recessions lying 
down--that we will act to strengthen our country and assist our 
countrymen.
    Now is the time for bold action. I request that Judge Kollar 
Kotelly approves the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Deans



MTC-00029840

FAX
To: John Ashcroft
Phone
Fax Phone +1(202)307-1454
Date: Monday, January 28, 2002 Pages including cover sheet: 2
From: Eric & Britt Boston
17525 199th Place NE
Woodinville
WA 98072
Phone +1(425)788-2297
Fax Phone +1(425)788-2297
NOTE:
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to encourage you to accept the terms of the 
antitrust settlement recently reached between Microsoft and the 
United States Justice Department. Microsoft has agreed to terms that 
will result in a much more competitive software environment and that 
will allow Microsoft to move forward with its business of developing 
innovative software.
    To put this lawsuit behind it, Microsoft has agreed to allow 
computer makers and software developers to set-up Windows within 
their computer systems they will sell on the market so that 
Microsoft products can be disabled and competitive non-Microsoft 
products can be enabled in their place. And to make this easier, 
Microsoft will show competitors the various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows. This will allow smaller, developing software 
companies to get their foot in the door and grow while fostering a 
competitive environment that will drive all parties to create 
better, more innovative software.
    Further, Microsoft will not take any retaliatory action against 
any computer makers of software developers who choose to modify 
Windows, nor will Microsoft retaliate against any computer makers 
who ship operating systems that directly compete with Microsoft 
Windows. Based on these facts, I encourage you to support the terms 
of the settlement so everyone can move forward with the business of 
developing good software for the American people. Thank you for all 
your hard work!
    Sincerely,
    Brittisha Boston



MTC-00029842

FHANC??S H SUITTER
SUITTER AXLAND
A ??ALT PROSESSIONAL LAW ??TION
175 South West ??emple
Seventh Floor
Sal?? Lake City, ??tah 84101-1480
Telephone (801) 512-7300
F Man ??utter@sunter.com
?? (801) 532 73??
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I write today concerning the Microsoft Antitrust Class Action 
Lawsuit. I urge you to settle this case as quickly as possible. As a 
user of technology on a daily basis, I am concerned that technology 
consumers are suffering the biggest loss rather than those involved 
in this suit. I am increasingly alarmed at all of the government 
regulatory oversight, which will be placed tm computer companies. I 
have never witnessed a settlement where more government intervention 
and layers of bureaucracy have been the solution. I urge you to move 
forward to settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Francis H. Suitter, Esq.
    FHS/jg ??



MTC-00029843

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ns. Hesse:
    Given that my husband is a local television news personality, I 
follow the news even more keenly than I ordinarily would. I began 
working at a new job just a few short weeks ago, as the membership 
and marketing director for Heritage Golf Club in Wake Forest, North 
Carolina. Unfortunately, the news and my common sense tells me that 
many other folks won't be fortunate enough to find new jobs because 
of the poor economic conditions our country is in. Were got to 
change that.
    Our government must demonstrate that it is serious about 
stimulating the economy. A great first step in that process would be 
to finish the job of settling its antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. I think I speak for most American when I say, 
"Enough already!" Both sides have agreed to 
settle--it's time to move on to something else,
    I believe that I also speak for executives who work in 
membership and marketing when I say that I'm much more efficient in 
my job because of Microsoft's quality products. Database management, 
communications, and publications are all professionally done with 
just a click of a mouse.
    The American people choose Microsoft products because they make 
life better. Life will also be better for many Americans once this 
suit is settled. I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the 
settlement.



MTC-00029844

To: Microsoft Fax: 001
fin@Mobilization Office.com
1-202-307-1454
From: Joe G. Ike
Date. 1/26/02
Letter to Attorney General
Pages: 2
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Reference is made to your e-mail of Friday January 25, 2002, 
Attachment USAGike--

[[Page 28760]]

Joe--1018--0123 and my reply thereto by return e-mail. As 
noted in my reply, please find attached a signed copy of the letter 
that I dispatched this morning to the Attorney General of the USA. I 
sincerely hope that all will turn out in your favor! Wishes!
3410 76th Avenue, SE
Mercer island, WA 98040-3439
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 you today to encourage you to bring the 
litigation against Microsoft to an immediate and decisive closure. I 
must state that I have been unequivocally and strongly against this 
case from its very inception. It appears evident to me that it is 
very unfair to punish a company for excelling in their industry. I 
am a volunteer instructor with a non-profit organization teaching 
senior citizens how to enrich their lives by becoming computer 
literate. This is no easy task but at the close of every session I 
thank God that Microsoft has been so innovative and far sighted as 
to integrate their basic Operating System with applications to 
provide the User with a basis of commonality that makes the learning 
process infinitely easier. This applies not only to senior citizens 
but also to those individuals learning the use of new software to 
increase their knowledge and consequently leading to industrial 
efficiency. Prior to my retirement I vividly remember the days when 
it was a nightmare when attempting to home-brew our own integrated 
system, I have experienced the fact that Microsoft has expended 
every effort to provide us with the features that we sorely needed.
    As I dwell upon the past three years ! conclude that it must 
have been very taxing on the IT industry, the economy, Microsoft and 
its employees. I understand that Microsoft has spent millions of 
dollars in their defense-money that could have been put into the 
development of new products resulting in further advancement of 
technology and industrial efficiency. The employees of Microsoft 
have had to endure an air of uncertainty during this entire 
situation. As a citizen I am extremely concerned with the possible 
flight of talent that is the backbone of Microsoft's awesome 
capability.
    It is difficult for me to understand the problems related to the 
proposed, but rejected, settlement. Judging from what the media has 
reported, Microsoft has agreed to the terms included in the 
settlement as well as to the terms brought forth on issues that were 
not considered to be unlawful, To name two concessions, Microsoft 
has agreed to avoid agreements that would obligate any third party 
to exclusively distribute Windows technology. Additionally, 
Microsoft will not obligate software developers to refrain from 
developing competing software. Frankly, I personally cannot 
understand why Microsoft should have to divulge the code that makes 
up their Operating System. t would certainly include that in the 
realm of being proprietary and intellectual property. To put it more 
strongly, to me it smacks of being a case of sour grapes by certain 
other organizations that have not been as successful. Chairman 
Greenspan commented, with words to the effect, that the Guide-On 
that is going to lead the economy of our nation out of tile doldrums 
is technology. It is our future. There is absolutely no doubt in my 
mind that Microsoft has been a major contributor to technology. As a 
result, and to reiterate, I personally would like to see this matter 
dosed as soon as possible and I am sure that I am among many who 
share this same point of view. Thank you for your time and giving me 
this opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Joe 13. Ike
    Engineer( retired ) e-mail 
joeikel @ attbi.com tel: (206) 232-5e43



MTC-00029845

Edward A. Garvey
32 Lawton Street
St. Pail, MN 55102
Phone: 651-296-2243 (wk); 651-221-1922 (hm) 
E-mail: GarveyEd;@;AOL.com
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a small Microsoft stockholder (about Ii0 shares in my 
daughter's college fund) and a user of diverse computing and 
software products, I have followed the antitrust proceedings against 
Microsoft with interest. With this introduction, I thought it worth 
sharing with you that I think the settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft is a reasonable conclusion to a matter 
whose founding facts have been (and are being) addressed in the 
marketplace.
    I support the settlement and am pleased that it was reached. 
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Edward A. Garvey



MTC-00029846

Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
6ol D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 2053D-0001
Randolph S. Kahle
6161 N Canon del Pajaro
Tucson, AZ 8S750
28-January-2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have worked in the computer industry for over 2S years. During 
that time I have worked as a developer, a marketing / business 
strategist, and as a consultant to large and small companies. I have 
a degree from Rice University in software and hardware design and an 
MBA from the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration at 
Dartmouth College.
    My work experience includes Hewlett-Packard as well as six years 
as a marketing and business strategist at Microsoft working on 
database and developer products.
    I have seen Microsoft from both the inside and now, for the last 
ten years, from the outside. As I am not an attorney, I cannot speak 
to the legal specifics of the Proposed Final settlement, however, I 
am qualified to speak to the practical implications of the terms in 
the computer industry as well as other industries and markets into 
which Microsoft may enter.
COMMENTS IN GENERAL
    As the computer industry moves towards a future, fully-
distributed, computing environment, it is vital to have an 
environment which fosters and rewards innovation. While it may seem 
a mature industry, we are still only at the early stages. To date, 
there have been several waves of general innovation and 
consolidation. Each wave brings cost reductions, creative ideas, 
whole new companies and new technologies. After a wave, there has 
been consolidation around standards and then the next wave appears. 
These waves could be named the "mainframe era", the 
"minicomputer era", and the "personal computer 
era". We are now leaving the "personal computer 
era" and entering a new one centered on distributed computing 
and information, the "distributed computing era". As 
each era transitioned to the next, the companies and products of 
each successive wave accommodated the past, while providing new 
innovations.
    IBM anchored the mainframe era, Digital and Hewlett-Packard 
emerged during the minicomputer era, and Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, 
and others emerged during the personal computer era.
    What is different about the current transition, is that a single 
company, Microsoft, is attempting to leverage their monopolistic 
power created in the personal computer era and their position in the 
industry to define and control the next era. COMMENTS ON CULTURE
    I worked at Microsoft before Windows was a monopoly. What I 
observed was a culture fixated on domination at all costs. While 
Microsoft was growing, these actions and activities were not 
illegal. After becoming a monopoly, they clearly are (and were found 
to be so by the courts). What is important to note is that these 
illegal behaviors stem from the culture of the company. Because of 
this strong culture, I do not believe that any external monitoring 
of internal operations would ever be successful (e.g. the 
"TC" as proposed). Microsoft managers are simply too 
smart, experienced, and aggressive to ever agree to submitting to 
external pressures. This comes from the top, Bill Gates himself. In 
my experience, I have never encountered a discussion in which anyone 
at Microsoft ever thought that they were in the wrong. This would 
never occur to anyone. This is a cultural factor, an arrogance of 
doing no wrong. With this culture, it seems extremely unlikely that 
Microsoft would be able to self-monitor or even work with an 
external auditing agency.
    REMEDIES
    My first choice for a remedy is to break Microsoft up into 
smaller competing entities. The reason for this is to attempt to 
reshuffle the organization so that there could be cultural and 
behavioral change.
    I petition the court to explore this remedy as the best way to 
combat future violations by Microsoft.

[[Page 28761]]

    If the court does not pursue a break-up of Microsoft, then I 
strongly agree with many others, that there must be changes to and 
additional provisions added to the Proposal Final Settlement.
    For example, I fully support, and have sign Dan Kegel's open 
letter (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). OPENNESS AND 
TRANSPARENCY
    My second choice for a remedy is to force openness and 
transparency in Microsoft's technology. Distributed computing 
systems are very complex and can be very subtle. To help the court, 
many other petitioners have listed specific technology disclosures 
that will help create openness. I will add that, in a general way, 
if Microsoft's technologies can be viewed by the industry and the 
market as *components* rather than as a *whole*, then a good balance 
may be struck between Microsoft's ability to innovate, and the 
industry's ability to compete and develop both complementary 
technology as well as competing technology.
    The tricky question is this: "Where are the boundaries 
between the components7"
    A simple answer can be found by focusing on and leveraging the 
upcoming pressures that will be felt as the distributed computing 
era arrives. The answer I propose is simple, easily monitored and 
enforced:
    * Force Microsoft to fully disclose all wire-level (binary) 
protocols used between independent computing devices. (This include 
.Net protocols, SMB/NBT protocols for file sharing, and others) 
Force Microsoft to disclose the APIs which they expect other 
components to use as they access the wire-level protocols.
    * Force Microsoft to fully disclose all file formats used to 
store persistent information. The reason these are good remedies 
relies on the following:
    * The future direction of computing is toward small, distributed 
computing devices. The economic and technological pressures will 
force the definition of boundaries between distributed components. 
This will be a constant pressure to *increase* disclosure over time.
    * It is easier to monitor and audit compliance at these 
boundaries compared to other more abstract and more easily re-
defined boundaries. (Microsoft is a master at redefining boundaries 
for their own benefit).
    * These disclosures provide significant value to competitors and 
innovators. However, I must also point out that this is only a first 
step, This describes the technological boundaries and requirements. 
The Settlement must also address the legal issues such as 
Microsoft's attempt to prevent open-source software from running on 
Windows, and other licensing and cross-tie issues. I will leave 
these issues to the legal experts.
    Violation of the Settlement must bring with it a powerful and 
costly punishment. I propose that if Microsoft violates the 
provisions of the Settlement that they be forced to place any 
software or system found to be in violation or associated with a 
violation into the general domain through, an open-source license. 
This, more than any financial penalty, would be a real deterrent.
    Randolph S. Ka??e
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00029847

FROM : Santo L Gaudio
3011 146th Street
Flushing. NY 11354
January 25, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my full support for the 
settlement with Microsoft. Enough is enough. Milllons of dollars are 
being wasted on unnecessary litigation and we must take advantage of 
this opportunity to end needless spending now.
    Microsoft has made many concessions just so that the company may 
move forward with developing new products. For example, Microsoft, 
has agreed to disclose for its competitors various interfaces that 
are internal to Windows' operating system products--a first in 
an antitrust settlement, Also, the Company has agreed in design its 
future products to provide easy access to computer makers and 
consumers to promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. In 
addition, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical 
terms, including price. Clearly, these changes will benefit both 
consumers and the economy.
    Not only is this settlement fair and reasonable, but it will 
prevent any future antic0mpetitive behavior as well. The recession 
has had a huge affect on both government and individual pocketbooks, 
and it. is important that the IT industry be allowed to concentrate 
on business as soon as possible.



MTC-00029849

Avionet (U.S.A.) Ltd.
Avionet Leasing Inc.
888 S. Figueroa St., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA g0017
Tel: (213) 896-1000 Fax: (213) 824-7796
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Even though the 
terms of the settlement are certainly not favorable to Microsoft, 
the settlement has the advantage of ending the litigation.
    It is better that Microsoft will now be encouraged to handle its 
pricing policies to its OEMs in a fairer and more equitable fashion, 
but the requirement that Microsoft release more of its source codes 
to developers and competitors can be problematic. I am hopeful that 
that proposed technical committee would be a fair arbiter when 
dealing with all of these issues.
    With so many other more important issues facing our country 
today, I am glad that this lawsuit is finally over. I am hoping that 
no further federal action in this matter will be necessary.



MTC-00029850

347 Chilian Ave.
Palm Beach, FL 33480
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
US Dept of Justice
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    I strongly support the Microsoft settlement. I do so as a 
taxpayer and consumer. Thank You.
    Very Truly Yours
    Marvin A. Goldenberg



MTC-00029851

Constance Roberts
3421 South Dye Road
Flint, Michigan 48507-1009
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am urging you to settle the lengthy antitrust lawsuit pending 
against Microsoft. I think it is ridiculous that the case even made 
it as far as it has. I think it is a shame that the government has 
gone after Microsoft. Bill Gates is simply a guy who made good and 
has been punished for his success. The Justice Department seems to 
have unfairly singled out Microsoft instead of treating all 
companies in similar positions in an evenhanded manner.
    Though I believe that the justice system has wasted significant 
time and money in continuing to pursue legal action against 
Microsoft, I believe that the terms of the current settlement are 
reasonable, and I would like to see Microsoft back on track. I am a 
stockholder in the company, so I am affected by its inability to 
conduct business as usual.
    The government's stated aim is to increase competition. The new 
provisions Microsoft has agreed to will do just that. Users and 
computer makers can more often and more easily install and configure 
Windows in ways that promote and use competing products.
    Please settle the case as quickly as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Constance Roberts



MTC-00029852

05/06/1994 09:07 0609663171
GARY REID HOMES INC
Jan-28-02 11:66A Sharon Cassidy
Gary and Susan Reid
5651 Mission Road
Bellingham, WA 98226-9580
Tel (360) 966-2385/1 ax (360) 966-3171
Form: The Attorney General
From: Oaty Reid
Date: January 28, 2002
Re: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    From any viewpoint as a consumer, this suit needs to be 
resolved. I believe that this suit with cost in money. First, it has 
increased Microsoft's cost to do business second, it has diverted 
effect from producing a better products and, third, the tax dollars 
spent on this suit exceed possible savings to the public.
    I believe the Microsoft's product is fairly priced when compared 
to the benefits obtained I can be par?? communication revolution 
that has changed the world for less than $200,00.
    Does not Microsoft have a proprietary right to its st??ems? It 
appears that the patent

[[Page 28762]]

holder of be ?? hoop has more rights than the designers of this 
life-changing system The me?? of the internet browser into the basic 
system is important to the consumer. I should not be se??nitted to 
give a competition an advantage. Several of the business p?? that 
were in question have already been changed. If our economic system 
is ?? competitors need to produce better products--not resort 
to politically driven ?? that results in power products for the 
purpose of bringing equality
    ee: Microsoft



MTC-00029853

SGM Bindery Inc.
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this time to give you my opinion on die 
Microsoft Anti Trust case. This case has been a fiasco since its 
beginnings and I can't understand how it has been allowed to go on 
for so long.
    I run my own company and use Microsoft products every day. I 
have never been forced to use their software. This is supposed to be 
a free enterprise system and anyone can go out and buy whatever 
products they want. There is a reason Microsoft's products have 
become so widespread and widely used that consumers prefer them to 
their competitors. Consumer preference does not constitute a 
monopoly.
    Even though I feel this settlement goes farther than Microsoft 
may want, it is necessary to get out country on its feet again. 
Microsoft has agreed to give away a lot of thee intellectual 
property and will be changing their business practices to make it 
easier for consumers to access non-Microsoft products on their 
computers.
    For the sake of our technology industry and our entire economy, 
please do your pall m putting a final end to this case.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen G Martinec
    President
    7120 Rutherford Road,
    Baltimore, MD 21244
    410.944.7660
    800.852.4530
    Fax 410.944.5707
    bind@sgmbindery.com
    www.sgmbindery.com



MTC-00029854

Jan 28 02 04:28p
EVERGLADES
Laboratories. Inc.
1602 Clare Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
ph: 561/833-4200
fx: 561/833-7280
email: evlabs @ beffsouth.net
January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DO 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft is not the evil money grubbing corporation that it has 
been made out to be. Rather, it is in my opinion that the other 
information technology companies are the ones with dollar signs in 
their eyes. The antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft was 
nothing more than profit driven facade.
    The settlement that was reached in November is reasonable and in 
the best interest of all parties involved. Microsoft has agreed not 
to seek any sort of retaliatory measures against computer 
manufacturers that promote software other than Windows. The 
settlement further stipulates that
    Microsoft must provide documentation on how to interface 
competitors' software with its own operating system. Microsoft has 
already given a lot of ground with this settlement, and I feel that 
they should be asked to give no more. The settlement as decided upon 
in November should be left as is with no changes. The money driven 
attack on this company needs to stop, so please finalize the current 
settlement and stop litigation now.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Martin, Ph.D.



MTC-00029855

James Woodward
432 Lynshire Lane
Findlay, OH 45840
January, 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my concern in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I believe that this three-year-long dispute should 
be resolved permanently. Because of the federal action many states 
have jumped on board. I don't understand their cause. If you drop 
the case and accept the initial agreement, then, I'm sure man), of 
the states will also.
    Microsoft is a company that is successful m its business. I do 
not believe they should be penalized for this. Microsoft has pledged 
to share more information with other companies and create more 
opportunities for them, therefore, the entire technology industry 
will benefit from this settlement.
    Again, it will be more productive to allow Microsoft to continue 
doing what they do best. This will benefit the economy and 
consumers. I sincerely hope that this settlement will be finalized 
because it is in the best interest of the industry and the American 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    James Woodward



MTC-00029856

January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
6Ol D St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am not a lawyer, an officer of the court, a technology 
professional, or a politician. So granted, there may be nuances that 
I am overlooking in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am having a 
difficult time understanding why some of Microsoft's competitors 
driving the antitrust case, along with half of the states suing the 
company, are unhappy with the settlement that all others involved in 
this case have agreed upon.
    Reviewing the compromise from my vantage point, it would appear 
that Microsoft gave the most and the plaintiffs got the most. 
Computer makers using Windows receive flexibility allowing them to 
replace and remove specific parts of Windows. Even customers receive 
more flexibility with the product and information technology 
providers will have access to technical specifications. Plus, they 
would set up a panel to make sure all parts of the settlement are 
complied with.
    As children, and sadly sometimes as adults, when it comes to 
decision-making there are always a couple of people that won't 
budge. In order to seek a compromise, two sides must at least come 
part way to meet somewhere in the middle. It seems those not signing 
off on the settlement simply refuse to take any steps toward the 
middle. Where I come from, that's bullheaded and stubborn and it 
gets you nowhere fast.
    It is my hope that as the officer of the court making a final 
judgment on this decision, that you will be able to compartmentalize 
the intricate parts of this case. Set aside those who haven't signed 
on to the settlement, set aside those technology companies seeking a 
break up of Microsoft refusing to accept any punishment less, set 
aside those politicians who may be seeking continued spotlight by 
moving on with the case. Focus on the facts. A settlement has been 
reached by most of the parties partaking in the case. It seems to me 
to be a just compromise.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Meyers
    4822 Ashley Park Drive
    W. Des Moines, IA 50265



MTC-00029857

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    During my tenure as Assistant Director of Admissions at North 
Carolina State University, I have witnessed many technological 
innovations and trends. Most Of these have involved the use of a 
computer, and many involved Microsoft products.
    While I cannot say with exact certainty why the federal 
government pursued an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, I can 
tell you that it has had a devastating impact on technological 
innovation while it has transpired. Before the lawsuit, tech 
companies were lauded for focusing on research and development at 
the exclusion of politics. In fact, few of the leading tech firms 
employed anyone to conduct government relations programs.
    Microsoft learned quickly that its exclusive focus on making 
life more efficient for everyone had made its competitors struggle

[[Page 28763]]

for market share. The competitors retaliated by getting into the 
political game. The lawsuit followed. Even today, Microsoft's 
competitors are lobbying to contignue the lawsuit endlessly.
    We should support the federal government and Microsoft in their 
decision to settle the case. I urge Judge KollarKotelly to approve 
the proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Let's allow research and 
development to march ahead.
    Sincerely,
    Jill Green



MTC-00029858

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Trial Attorney
U S. Department of Justice
601 D St NW, Ste 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Attorney Hesse:
    In my eyes, the government's treatment of Microsoft has not been 
unlike the actions of Medieval European Lord's who would cut off the 
head of a nemesis and display it on a stake in the village square 
for all to heed the warning. Unfortunately, the real harm goes to 
taxpayers, consumers, and tech investors in this case.
    The government and Microsoft finally came to a settlement after 
going in and out of courtrooms as fast as they would enter and cease 
mediation talks since this case began a few years ago. Although this 
settlement is fair, we are beyond even that factor in this 
proceeding. Whether or not the agreement serves one side more than 
the other--which from the looks of it serves the government 
over the corporation--what is important is that a settlement 
has been reached with most of the contributors to the case have 
signed off on.
    Please end this portion of the case with your approval of the 
settlement so that all of us--Microsoft, consumers, taxpayers, 
government court officials, and investors--can get back to 
business as usual.
    Many Thanks,
    Richard J. McLaren
    President, McLaren Ins. & Associates



MTC-00029859

Linda Diamond
1961 West Hood Avenue 2B
Chicago, Illinois 60660
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the government stop interfering with the 
business practices of Microsoft, and I am happy to see this case has 
been settled at the federal level. The two sides reached a fair 
compromise in November of last year, and it is time to finalize that 
settlement and end this matter once and for all.
    The government agreed to settle this matter because Microsoft 
agreed to change its operating system to allow independent companies 
a better chance to compete in the marketplace. Windows will be 
designed so that these other companies can promote their own 
products rather than Microsoft's, and Microsoft will not retaliate 
against its competitors in any way for promoting non-Microsoft 
products. Them will be no more risk of anti-competitive behavior by 
Microsoft because a three person technical committee will oversee 
Microsoft's business operations from this point forward, ensuring 
that the company fully complies with all terms of the proposed 
settlement. I see no need to continue this litigation.
    Once this case is settled, the IT industry will really benefit, 
and consumers will have more choices and better choices as a result. 
Competition will be strong, the industry will flourish, and the 
nation's economy will get a jump-start that it desperately needs. 
Thank you for settling this lawsuit, as it is the right thing to do 
for the industry and for the American economy.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Diamond



MTC-00029860

Wayne Hummer
Investments, LLC.
Fax
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Steven & Linda Diamond
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
    1-202-616-9937 3
Phone:
Date: 1/26/02 
Re: Microsoft Litigation cc:
Comments:
JAN-28-2002 15:29
WAYNE HUMMER
312 431 0704
P.02/03
Wh Wayne Hummer
INVESTMENTS
300 South W. Drive,
Chicago, IL 60606-6607
local 312/431.1700 / toll free 800.621.4477
312,431,0704
www.whunmer.com
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the government stop interfering with the 
business practices of Microsoft, and I am happy to see this case has 
been settled at the federal level. The two sides reached a fair 
compromise in November of last year, and it is time to finalize that 
settlement and end this matter once and for all.
    The government agreed to settle this matter because Microsoft 
agreed to change its operating system to allow independent companies 
a better chance to compete in the marketplace. Windows will be 
designed so that these other companies can promote their own 
products rather than Microsoft's, and Microsoft will not retaliate 
against its competitors in any way for promoting non-Microsoft 
products. There will be no more risk of anti-competitive behavior by 
Microsoft because a three person technical committee will oversee 
Microsoft's business operations from this point forward, ensuring 
that the company fully complies with all terms of the proposed 
settlement. I see no need to continue this litigation.
    Once this case is settled, the IT industry will really benefit, 
and consumers will have more choices and better choices as a result. 
Competition will be strong, the industry will flourish, and the 
nation's economy will get a jump-start that it desperately needs. 
Thank you for settling this lawsuit, as it is the right thing to do 
for the industry and for the American economy.
    Sincerely,
    Steven M. Diamond
    Serving Investors Since 1931



MTC-00029861

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite
1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I wanted to correspond with you and convey my opposition to the 
Microsoft lawsuit and support the compromise settlement.
    I don't sec rely harm that has come to the American consumer as 
a result of the legal proceedings. Capitalism continues to work and 
Microsoft has developed useful and practical technology for 
education I am clear that Microsoft has been targeted by its 
competitors and I don't believe that taxpayers" money should 
be silent for this type of lawsuit. Take the government out of this 
dispute and let capitalism do its job.
    In conclusion, I ask that the Court resolve this issue as 
quickly as possible, in the interest of the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Barnes Elementary Principal



MTC-00029862

Wake Forest Town Commission
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms, Hesse:
    As a member of the Wake Forest Board of Commissioners, I am 
concerned that the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit has dragged on too 
long and we need to settle it now. I am elected to represent all the 
people in Wake Forest, and I am concerned that everyone's jobs are 
being threatened by the recession. Microsoft products are the 
backbone of business and industry--and they help offices run 
efficiently throughout our community. I am opposed to prolonging the 
lawsuit in any way. The suit needs to be resolved... and resolved 
now! Many of our commuting citizens work in the Research Triangle 
Park. High tech solutions for health care, business and 
communications firms are developed here in the Triangle. However, 
the ability of these companies to be innovative in creating 
solutions, and productive in the creation of jobs, hinges upon 
moving beyond excessive litigation.
    Let's face the fact that both parties want the suit to end, 
Microsoft and the federal

[[Page 28764]]

government are in agreement on all points of the settlement. I want 
to strongly urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to promptly approve the 
settlement. This lawsuit has cost businesses and local governments 
untold millions in lost revenues, Let's stop the bleeding,
    Let's move beyond this case and move the economy forward.
    Sincerely,
    Kim Marshall
    Mayor Pro Tempore
    401 Owen Avenue--Wake Forest, NC 27587



MTC-00029863

2601 Scofield Rid6e Parkway
#1523
Austin, TX 78727
David Morgan
Fax
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: David Morgan
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or
1-202-616-9937
Pages: 1
Phone:
Date: 1/28/2002 
Re: Microsoft Anti-Trust
cc:
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    I'm happy to see the Federal Government has come to at least 
some decision to end the unjustifiably offensive and expensive anti-
trust case against Microsoft Corporation. Three years of untold 
waste has been directed at Microsoft and we the tax payers incurred 
the entire cost. Quite frankly, had Justice spent the amount of 
money it wasted in this suit in anti-terrorist security several 
thousand people would be alive and working at the World Trade Center 
building. The agreement arrived at after extensive negotiations with 
a court-appointed mediator is very unfair and only serves the self 
interests of the individuals and companies which brought the action 
as well as those political interests of the Justice Department 
attorneys and US politicians. Simply; Microsoft has gone well beyond 
any legitimate or fair agreements to remedies. It's time the 
government accepted the terms levied against the company and moved 
on to other things, Let Microsoft continue doing great things for 
the computer industry which helps us all instead of hindering the 
company and as we all know harming the little guys--the 
employees and the consumers.
    Enough is enough. No more federal legal action should be taken 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David Morgan



MTC-00029864

Jeffrey L. Phelps
4705 East U.S. Highway 160
Independence, KS 67301
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case is a 
good deal for the taxpayer, investors and the computer industry. I 
strongly encourage the court to accept the settlement. The good news 
for supporters of the free-market system is that Microsoft is not 
going to be busted up by the federal government. Instead tiffs 
settlement specifically provides remedy for portions of the 
complaint that have been made it through lower courts.
    Under this agreement competitors of Microsoft will find it much 
easier to promote their products into the Windows operating system, 
it requires Microsoft to provide intellectual property with other 
companies when necessary, and Microsoft will be banned from cutting 
special deals with specific computer manufacturers.
    Clearly the Department of Justice and the company are interested 
in seeing this case ended. I the American public can count on the 
court to support this agreement.



MTC-00029865

To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Forrest G. Gregory
11134 Villas On The Green DR
Riverview, Fl. 33569
Sub. Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 26, 2002
    Dear Sir.
    I feel the Justice Department should settle with Microsoft. The 
agreement you and the nine states agree to was a victory for neither 
side.
    Now we need a victory for the consumer. Allow us to use the 
windows system without diluting it with more regulations on 
Microsoft.
    The public has been supporting the Justice Department and state 
attorneys with our tax Dollars to continue these lawsuits. Settle 
and allow the private industry to make a profit. If an inventor has 
his property taken away by the government, other inventors will take 
notice. Consider what little incentive Microsoft or other potential 
targets of lawsuits would have to make a better product I would not 
be able to type and send you this letter without windows operating 
system. I'm sure there are others systems but I don't have time to 
search them out. Settle and somehow don't allow the other nine 
states to continue battling the litigation can be endless and no 
benefit to the public.
    Settle and close the book.
    Forrest G. Gregory



MTC-00029866

Anne Gould Anderson
614 West Marconi Ave
Phoenix AZ 85023-7447
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to urge you and the administration to do every 
thing in your power to bring to a close the years old Microsoft 
case. This anti-trust suit is settled but m name and further 
politicking in Washington or posturing in the media are wasteful and 
counter productive exercises. The proposed settlement agreement was 
born of years of litigation, negotiation and mediation, it is a hard 
fought and won compromise between the several parties and varied 
interests. It deserves to be adopted for the sake of Microsoft, a 
great American company, the faltering IT industry, and our national 
wellbeing.
    The settlement will leave Microsoft as it stood at the outset, 
the sole leader of America's most innovative industry. It will 
require the company, however, to change its ways and embrace a more 
Open and pro-competitive business philosophy. Microsoft will have to 
abandon its software exclusivity demands when selling its platforms 
to computer manufacturers. It will have to open itself up to regular 
government review. It must eschew further predatory or anti-
competitive marketing practices. It will have to, not just accept, 
but also promote a more competitive IT world. In doing so it will 
hopefully become a catalyst for the whole industry.
    Please support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Anne Gould Anderson



MTC-00029867

HENRY G, & EILEEN C. JAMES
1825B BRIARCLIFFE BOULEVARD .
WHEATON, IL 60187
P 630-665-8904 .
F 630-260-4037
Email: twojames @ earthlink.net
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing to express our opinion regarding the antitrust 
suit against Microsoft, which is that it should be concluded at 
once. The settlement reached in November 2001, is a fair and just 
settlement that ought to be accepted by the Justice Department.
    For fire sake of Microsoft's shareholders and customers, this 
antitrust suit needs to be brought to a swift and final conclusion.
    Thank you and we think you are doing a good job in your cabinet 
position.
    Sincerely,
    Henry G. James
    Eileen C. James



MTC-00029868

Fred Dorst
11715 Canyon Vista Lane
Tomball, TX 77375-7677
January 26, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear that the Justice Department has decided to 
end its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. The Department's three-
year case has gone on for way too long.
    The agreement they came up with came after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The company agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit--trust for the sake of wrapping 
up the suit. The company even agreed to document and disclose, for 
use by its

[[Page 28765]]

compertitors, various interfaces that are internal to windows' 
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement.
    Microsoft has been distracted long enough. I don't think the 
federal government should ever have to drag the company in to the 
courts ever again, it would be soon by most as nothing more than 
pure harassment.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Dorst



MTC-00029869

TRAVEL WORLD
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
RE:COMMENT PERIOD MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
JANUARY 28, 2002
    AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO BELIEVES STRONGLY IN THE FREE 
INTERPRISE SYSTEM WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COUNT ON IN THE UNITED 
STATES, I WISH TO OFFER MY OPION ON THE MICROSOFT ANTITRUST LAWSUIT. 
I BELIEVE IT WAS WRONG FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO INITIATE THE LAWSUIT 
WHICH IN ESSENCE PENALIZED MICROSOFT FOR IT'S SUCCESS IN THE 
TECHNOLOGY ARENA. I STRONGLY FEEL THAT MICROSOFT HAS NOT HARMED 
CONSUMERS AND THAT CONSUMERS INSTEAD HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE NEW 
CHOICES, AND LOW PRICES PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT AND OTHER COMPANIES 
LIKE THEM. I WAS VERY SORRY TO HEAR THAT NINE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT TO 
THIS 3 YEAR MILTIMILLION DOLLAR EFFORT TO TOPPLE MICROSOFT AND ALLOW 
THEIR COMPITORS TO HAVE UNFAIR LEVERAGE OVER THEM. UNFORTUNATELY MY 
STATE OF IOWA IS ONE OF THOSE NINE.
    I WANT TO INCOURAGE THE DOJ TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT IS BEING 
CONCIDERED A SETTLEMENT WITH SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE WHILE NOT 
ENTIRELY SATISFYING TO ANYONE. IN THIS TIME OF ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY, 
WE NEED BUSINESSES THAT STIMULATE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTS THROUGHOUT 
THEIR INDUSTRY TO RETURN WORK AND NOT! ENCOUNTER NEW OBSTACLES TO 
GROWTH.
    THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS REGARDING 
THE LAWSUIT AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
    KAY KING, OWNER/PRESIDENT
    TRAVEL WORLD. INC
    5922 Ashworth Road
    West Des Moines, Iowa 50266
    Office: 515.223-7474 .
    Fax: 515-223-7722



MTC-00029870

Management Reports Incorporated
23945 Mercantile Koad
Beachwood, OH 44122-5924
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC, 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    At first glance, many companies in the IT community were elated 
when the Department of Justice filed their suit against Microsoft. 
As time went on, however, it became evident that the punitive nature 
of the suit would probably end up more damaging than helpful to the 
entire IT community.
    Now there is this settlement. I believe this settlement to he 
amply fair. It is my hope that it will prevail through this period 
of public comment, and that no further federal action will be 
contemplated. The settlement's call for interoperability protocol 
disclosure and Windows reconfiguration will ensure that more varied 
and effective computer software is brought to the market.
    The IT business community has already been hit with slowdown and 
its share of business failures, both of which cut into the ability 
to quickly rebound. As the IT business has faltered, so has our 
entire national economy. It is time to put all of this 
unpleasantness behind us and allow the IT community to regain its 
position of strength. It is here that our economic recovery as a 
nation will be greatly enhanced.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Burger
    IS Manager



MTC-00029871

Kevin H. Smith
12435 129th Avenue E
Puyallup, WA 98374
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I favor an immediate resolution to the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. A settlement proposal exists. It has the support of the major 
parties and the majority of party states. It is fair and it is 
workable and it deserves to be ratified by the government and 
enacted.
    The settlement agreement addresses the concerns and the 
complaints of all parties. It leaves Microsoft whole while requiring 
the company to adopt practices that benefit its competitors. 
Microsoft must abandon predatory market practices. It must open its 
systems and technology to the exploitation of its competitors. It 
must now license its Windows platforms to computer manufacturers 
without exclusivity requirements for its software. These and other 
settlement terms, which Microsoft has accepted, make it clear that 
the company is willing to actively contribute to a new more 
competitive marketplace and justify an end to this case.
    Please support this settlement and use your influence to 
convince the congress that it is, as it is in fact, the best thing 
for everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin H. Smith



MTC-00029872

FACSIMILE COVER PAGE
To: Renata B. Hesse
From: Bill Barmes
Sent: 2/1/2002 at 10:17:56 AM
Pages 1 (including Cover)
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a VAR (Value Added Reseller) in the state of Idaho. I 
believe it is extremely important for the economy of this country to 
have the DOJ Microsoft agreement resolved as soon as possible. The 
Small Business Owner not only in Idaho but accross the country has 
already been badly affected by this process being dragged out. We 
all need to move forward and get OUR economy going again in the 
right direction.
    Bill Barmes
    CompNet Systems
    208-283-5400
    bbarmes @ velocitus.net
    fax 208-388-0610



MTC-00029873

Bill Hughes
33 Deborah Drive
Roswell, New Mexico 88201-6501
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0011
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am of the opinion that the settlement that was reached between 
the Justice Department and the Microsoft Corporation is fair and 
reasonable, and I am in full support of it. It is nice to see that 
the lawsuit that has leveled the stock market and pushed our economy 
into recession is over, and I hope that the other states still 
involved in litigation will follow the lead of the federal 
government.
    The settlement does not go easy on Microsoft, but will be 
beneficial to the entire information technology industry and the 
economy. Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows, 
which will include a mechanism that will make it easier for computer 
makers and consumers to install and use non-Microsoft software 
within the Windows operating system. It will also make it easier to 
add or remove access features that are built into Windows. This will 
push the competition to develop better software that will rival 
Microsoft's, and gives the consumer more choices. This gives the 
consumer the best of all worlds. Competition in the information 
technology industry will benefit as will consumer choice, This 
settlement is good for everyone involved, and i stand behind it.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Hughes



MTC-00029874

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I work in the financial services industry (commercial insurance) 
and have closely watched the impact of the Microsoft lawsuit, 
particularly its effect on the economy as a whole. I don't believe 
it is a coincidence that just when the lawsuit was getting underway, 
our economy began a significant downturn which some say we are just 
beginning to come out of in recent weeks. Continuing this lawsuit is 
only detrimental to the companies involved and the American economy 
as a whole. It would be far more advantageous to

[[Page 28766]]

all parties to settle the matter with appropriate safeguards in 
place to prevent a similar suit in the future. In my opinion this 
suit did nothing to protect me or other American consumers. In fact 
it harmed our buying power and the overall strength of the economy.
    As I understand the settlement from media reports, Microsoft has 
agreed to share intellectual property (which I don't think is right 
or fair) and create software that would allow for more flexibility 
for competing products to be used within Microsoft's operating 
system. In addition, a special committee will be formed to ensure 
compliance with all aspects of the settlement. It seems to be a fair 
and just compromise. Continuing to cripple Microsoft to allow others 
to "catch up" is not what our market economy is based 
upon. The fair opportunity taken advantage of by Microsoft 20 some 
years ago was open to all, do not further punish them for exercising 
their opportunity.
    Please accept the settlement before you and put this case to 
rest. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Scott M. Scheidel



MTC-00029875

Advanced Network Design, Incorporated
301 N. Harvey
Oklahomg City, OK 73102
(405) 319-9795, Fax: (405) 319-9824
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    During the course of the past several years, there has been a 
lot of saber-rattling going on between Microsoft and the department 
of Justice over this lawsuit. I personally do not think that the 
ultimate goal of the government to break up Microsoft would have 
survived a Supreme Court review, but the very threat seems to have 
tamed Microsoft into this settlement.
    In the unlikely event that Microsoft would have ever been broken 
up, it could have been beneficial for my company. However, it must 
be quickly said that the Microsoft product line is deservedly 
superior to anything on the market today. The long-term effects of 
having Microsoft splintered through this lawsuit would have been 
devastating for most consumers as well as many IT companies.
    This settlement is therefore good. Even though its terms 
encompass more than the lawsuit did, it has been accepted by both 
sides and, with its acceptance, the struggle between our government 
and Microsoft is over. i am hoping that this in itself will be 
enough to allow all of us to put this behind us and move forward.
    Sincerely,
    John Woods
    President
    CC: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00029876

ALLIED WASTE
Charlotte Metro District
January 19, 2002
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anlitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite I200
Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I started in business as a very young man, working with my 
father at the garbage company he owned. Since then I have worked 
with a variety of companies in the waste industry. I have seers 
dramatic changes not only in this industry but also in the national 
economy, Technology is a driving force in the waste industry and the 
economy, providing the foundation for increased productivity, 
consumer and business knowledge and millions of new jobs in almost 
every industry.
    Microsoft has been the leader in technology, not only in the 
United States, but internationally through its establishment of 
technology standards and integration of software. The efforts to 
restrict Microsoft's ability to compete could have serious 
implications for our economy. I urge a speedy resolution to the 
antitrust lawsuit. The proposed consent decree offers new 
flexibility and access to the tachnical aspects of Microsoft 
software so that computer makers and software developers can 
integrate non-Microsoft products into computer operating systems. 
Microsoft itself, its competitors, computer manufacturers, 
information technology providers and, most important of all, the 
consumer and end-users will benefit from the protections provided in 
the settlement agreement. It is time to accept this agreement and 
allow Microsoft and other technology companies to return to building 
a competitive technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    Jimmie Jones
P.O. Box 219/ Pineville, NC
28234/ 704.377.0161/ 803.548.2026 FAX
Waste Services of Charlotte
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Tria1 Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    For more than 20 years, I have worked in different aspects of 
the waste management industry During that time, I have seen dramatic 
changes in my industry as well as the overall economy. Certainly the 
use of technology has dramatically changed the way business is done, 
The waste industry is much more efficient and more capable of 
keeping track of equipment, waste sites and a variety of other 
aspects of our work because of technology.
    I have watched the antitrust litigation against Microsoft with 
interest not only because of the impact on technology but also the 
impact it could have on innovation and product development. While 
not a panacea for the concerns voiced by computer makers and 
software developers, the proposed settlement agreement will give 
them new rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft products 
can be used. Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a 
technical committee to monitor progress of the settlement and to 
provide a venue for concerns of computer makers, software developers 
and consumers.
    Microsoft will have the freedom to continue efforts to develop 
new and innovative products, Innovation is key in this country's 
ability to thrive in a global marketplace where foreign competitors 
try to replicate our products and sell them st cheaper prices to 
undercut our economic growth, The proposed settlement, agreement 
provide protections to all involved in this industry Microsoft 
itself, its competitors, computer manufacturers, information 
technology providers and, most important of all, the consumer. From 
my own experience, I know how difficult it is to come up with a 
compromise I encourage a quick resolution to the litigation so the 
technology industry can focus on regaining its competitive edge in 
the world economy.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Davies
    5105A Morenead Road
    Concord, NC 28027
    (704) 393-6900, Fax (704) 782-2177
?? Pre??cts, Inc.
?? Break Read, FF-202
Charietie, North Carallas 28205
Phone 704-373-9889
Toll Free 888-332-2888
January 22, 2002
Ronal?? Hesso
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Streat NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesso.
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement a??eement in 
the United States v. Microsoft case The Antitrust laws were meant to 
protect consumers, not to stop market competition. As a small 
business owner, I believe this proposal will not penalize� 
other competing operating systems. This proposed settlement 
encourages more competition and groater innovation. All new 
Microsoft operating systems, including Windows XP. would have to 
include a mechanism that readily allows and users to remove or to-
enable Microsoft's middleware products, such as the Internet web 
browser We need to be encouraging the technology sector, which is 
critical to out economic recovery.
    This Agreement is good for the technology industry, the economy 
and consumers
    Sincerely,
    Evan J. Boxer
    President
    EJn/dgb



MTC-00029877

John O'Donnell
13000 NE 28th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
Microsoft and the US

[[Page 28767]]

Department of Justice. It is time that this foolishness comes to a 
prompt end. More than enough time has been used to cover all of the 
bases and I feel that it is just a political standoff at this point.
    The terms of the settlement make apparent to me the intense 
lobbying efforts of Microsoft's competition as they will be granted 
new rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft products can 
be promoted more easily and also be given interfaces that are 
internal to Windows' operating system produces.
    Even though these concessions do not actually protect consumers 
and just help Microsoft's competitors that were unable to be 
innovative on their own, I urge your office to finalize the 
settlement. It is in the best interests of our economy, IT sector, 
and public for the case to end and our country to move on. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    John O'Donnell



MTC-00029878

Beverly Duncan
8310 E MORRIS ST
WICHITA, KS 67207
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Attorney Hesse:
    Please accept the settlement before involving the Department of 
Justice's antitrust suit against Microsoft. Based on what I have 
seen on the news and read in the papers lower courts have ruled that 
Microsoft should not be broken up and have thrown out much of the 
original case. It is my understanding that this occurred because the 
case revolved around proving consumer harm and such harm has never 
been proven.
    While this case has gone on for the last several years, we have 
all felt its negative impact on our wallets. Whether you consider 
the astronomical costs that taxpayers must bear or the millions lost 
in the stock-market, the effects of this case have been negative to 
average Americans. In an effort to resolve this case the Justice 
Department and Microsoft have wisely found a way to reach an 
agreement. It seems to me this agreement more then addresses any 
concerns some may hold about Microsoft's business practices.
    Please support the settlement before the court.
    Sincerely,
    Beverly Duncan



MTC-00029880

Gary G. Hill
44024 Countryside Druive
Lancaster, CA 93536
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Re: Microsoft Settlement Support
    As an elected member of the Antelope Valley Health Care District 
representing 450,000 people, I am writing this letter as in support 
of the settlement in the case against Microsoft. I believe that this 
whole suit was a waste of time and money. Only in America do we 
focus on tearing down success, and destroying a product line the 
works. There are choices out there, but none of them work as well as 
the Microsoft products.
    There are more pressing issues that are of concern to me in this 
country such as the energy crisis here in California. The state has 
lost $22 billion dollars resulting in consumers getting gauged. In 
addition, the price of gas has risen 20 cents per gallon, just in 
the last week. The Department of Justice should have taken a strong 
NO to the rash of oil company mergers this past decade; we can live 
without a home computer, but must have gasoline (real public transit 
has not arrived yet) Microsoft did not get off as easy, as its 
opponents would have people think. They agreed to terms beyond what 
was required in the suit. They also agreed to design future versions 
of Windows, starting with an interim release of XP, to provide a 
mechanism to make k easy for computer companies, consumers and 
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows.
    Microsoft seemed to be generous when settling the case. Let's 
end litigation now so that Microsoft can go back to work. We, the 
American people, need a company like Microsoft to stay strong, so 
they can continue to create innovative products, well paying jobs, 
and help strengthen the tech sector of the economy.
    Sincerely
    Gary G. Hill



MTC-00029882

TAMMY FOX
Renata Hesse
Thai Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    After years of hearing and reading about the Microsoft antitrust 
case, it is a great opportunity for the those of us in the general 
public to voice our opinion as part of the official record. Thank 
you for the opportunity to do so.
    Bill Gates started his company in his garage. Today, it's one of 
the largest software companies in the world. There is no better 
example in our time of fulfilling the American Dream. This man and 
his company are what entrepreneurial spirit is all about. When 
raising our children, never was it instilled in them to work hard, 
work smart, build something, BUT be careful not to get too big 
because if you do, the government might try to take it away. That is 
not how our country became the economic super power it is today. We 
got there with freedom and free enterprise. Clearly, I disagree with 
the premise of this entire case. However, we are past that point. 
Now we are at a place, after three long years of courtrooms and 
lawyers, where you have a decision to make On a proposed settlement. 
The agreement presented delivers what the federal and state 
governments involved felt they needed--oversight of Microsoft's 
business operations. I hope you will see fit to endorse the 
agreement so we can all move on.
    Thanks Again,
    Tammy Fox
    2136 Blake Boulevard SE
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52403



MTC-00029883

State Senator Stan Clark
205 US Highway 83
Oakley, KS 67748
January 25.2002
Judge Kolar-Kottely
Attn: Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kolar-Kottely,
    This is a difficult time for our nation as we face economic 
hardship we have not seen in a decade. As a state senator, I know 
the difficulties that come with this economic downturn. My own state 
of Kansas is facing budget shortfalls and the threat of increased 
taxes as a result.
    I understand that the economic situation is the result of a 
number of elements that together have culminated in a recession. 
Some of these elements, like the attacks on America on September 
11(th), were beyond our immediate control. Others elements, like the 
monetary" policy of the Federal Reserve are controlled 
directly by the government. The US Department of Justice's antitrust 
suit against Microsoft is another event that contributed to our 
economic downturn at the hands of our own government.
    There is quite a pool of evidence that demonstrates that 
specific events during the government's case against Microsoft had a 
direct correlation to the state of the stock market, Upon Judge 
Jackson's "findings of fact" against Microsoft, the 
NASDAQ fell. Upon his recommendation for splitting up the company, 
there was another NASDAQ freefall.
    The lawsuit against Microsoft may seem to be a small part of the 
whole economic picture, but it is difficult to deny that the case 
has had a negative economic impact--and on one of the driving 
sectors of our economy: the high-tech industry".
    When the high-tech industry is ailing, the rest office economy 
suffers as well. Technology is so integrated into our daily lives 
that we sometimes forget just how dependent up on it we are. Thus 
the ripple effect through the economy. When high-tech hurts, 
everybody hurts.
    From what I understand of the settlement accord the Department 
of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corp have agreed 
to, the major concerns of the government have been addressed; yet 
Microsoft is kept from breakup and allowed to continue to be an 
innovator in our high-tech industry.
    I hope you take a valuable step forward for our national economy 
by lending your approval to this settlement. It is a timely and 
appropriate way to end this suit and allow our country's economy to 
begin to repair itself.
    Sincerely,
    Sen. Stan Clark

[[Page 28768]]



MTC-00029884

VIRGINIA V. MANN
3004 Normandy Place
Evanston, Illinois 60201
January 25, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Anti-trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Sent via fax to: 202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I was pleased to hear that the Department of Justice had settled 
its ridiculous suit against Microsoft. Clearly, this lawsuit was 
politically driven and using our government and our laws in this 
fashion was unfortunate from the beginning. I am relieved to see 
this dispute resolved, although believe it should never have been 
brought in the first place.
    Although Microsoft has agreed to the restrictions in this 
settlement, I believe it is unfortunate that our government has 
chosen to do anything less than completely dropping the case. 
Microsoft has done more to improve our efficient and effective 
communications than has any other company in history. They should be 
left alone to continue their fine work without further interference 
from our government.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029885

Mark D. Snipe
420 West 42(nd) Street, Apt, 11F
New York, New York 10036
To: Attorney General's office
Fax: 202-307-1454
From: Mark D. Snipe
Date: 1/28/02 
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Pages: 2 (including fax cover page)
CC:
420 West 42nd Street, Apt. 11F
New York, NY 10036
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion m regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. I fully support Microsoft in this 
dispute and feel that this company is being punished for being 
successful. Microsoft has contributed such a great deal to our 
society that stifling this company would only have adverse 
consequences for consumers. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November and believe that this settlement will serve in 
the best public interest.
    Microsoft has agreed to all provisions of this agreement. 
Microsoft is willing to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs 
that compete with programs included within Windows. Microsoft has 
also agreed to design future versions of Windows to provide a 
mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers, and 
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows.
    This settlement is thorough. Continuing litigation against 
Microsoft will only serve to negatively impact our economy and 
consumers. Please support this settlement so that this company can 
devote their resources and time to innovation, rather than 
litigation. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Snipe



MTC-00029886

To:
Fax:
Date:
Subject: 
FAX
Citizens for a Sound Economy
Phone 202 783-3870
Fax 202 783-4687
1250 H Street NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-3908
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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,
    Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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,
    Print Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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,
    Print Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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.

[[Page 28769]]

    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's 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,
    Print Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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,
    Print Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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,
    Print Name:
    Address:
    Email:
    To the U.S. Department of Justice:
    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 Window's 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.



MTC-00029891

January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the new Commissioner of the Babe Ruth Softball League, I am 
confident in the future of our programs. I only wish that I had 
reason to be as optimistic about the future of the American economy. 
It seems as though everywhere I look I see doubt, confusion and a 
lack of stability in the American economy. We've got to improve this 
situation
    I think that President Bush has the right ideas: strengthening 
our military, improving education and cutting taxes will make our 
nation stronger, smarter and more ready for business. However, 
consumer confidence in the short term must be fixed in order to spur 
growth. The American people want to see their government working to 
help create jobs. In that spirit, I believe that the pending 
settlement in the federal government's antitrust suit against 
Microsoft needs to be finalized. Think about it: the stock market 
took a nosedive when the federal courts announced that they planned 
to dissolve Microsoft. The economy has never recovered. We need to 
reverse this trendl
    When I think of every American out of work, it makes me realize 
how needless and futile that any further pursuit of this lawsuit 
would be. We need our industry leaders, particularly our industry 
giants, like Microsoft, to be as strong as possible. Our government 
should work cooperatively to bolster, not weaken, them.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelty approves the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Famie Horn



MTC-00029892

Adam Marigold
January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms, Hesse:
    The antitrust case against Microsoft brought the booming success 
of the high-tech industry to a screeching halt.
    Microsoft has been a leader in the surge in both the high-tech 
sector and our overall economy. The case caused numerous slides on 
Wall Street costing investors everywhere. Future success for not 
only tech companies, but businesses of all types, seems in jeopardy 
of government intervention.
    The marketplace is constantly changing and guarantees success to 
no one, but opportunity for success to all. Government involvement 
in business obstructs the workings of America's free-market system. 
Customers determine what they want, what they like and buy it. 
There's no sure thing. The federal government should not be placed 
in a position of authority over the market--choosing champions 
and runners up. There is a place for a limited government--to 
protect.
    Those who argue this is in fact the role the state and national 
Justice Departments undertook in this case, should be asking

[[Page 28770]]

themselves--Why does this settlement come three years too late? 
Three years after it began we have a wounded economy, a limping 
technology industry, puzzled consumers and furious taxpayers. Please 
accept the settlement before you.
    Sincere
    Adam Marigold
    3906 B Ave NE
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
    (319) 363-3527



MTC-00029893

Commercial Underwriters
22720 Michigan Ave., Ste. #210
P 0 Box 1088
Dearborn, MI 4812t
Phone: (3t3) 278-3800
Fax: (3t3) 278-8467
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
DATE: 1/28/02
COMPANY:
FROM: US Department of Justice
FAX# 202-307 145/05 616-9937
FROM: Dan Schwartz
PAGES INC- COVER:
MESSAGE:
Please see Following page.
Click on us at:
www. CURMinc.com
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to express my gratitude liar the work you have done since 
being named Attorney General last year. I am especially pleased with 
your decision to settle the government's anti-trust lawsuit against 
Microsoft, and I fully support this settlement. Private businesses 
should have the right to develop ideas and become successful from 
them without being punished by the federal government.
    This lawsuit has had very negative effects on the technology 
industry, and this has carried over and hurt the U.S. economy. 
Microsoft has agreed to change its business practices so that 
competition can increase, the industry can be revitalized, and the 
economy can be stimulated. The settlement calls for a three person 
technical committee that will watch over Microsoft, and make sure 
that no more anti-competitive behavior exists in the future. 
Consumers will benefit from more choices in the marketplace, and 
this was the desired outcome when the lawsuit began over three years 
ago.
    Settling now is the right thing to do for our country at this 
time, and I thank you for your decision to end the litigation 
against Microsoft. I am hopeful that this is truly the end of this 
case at the federal level, and that there will no further action 
taken against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Schwartz
    P.O. Box 5644
    Dearborn, M--I 48128
    P.O. Box 1088,
    Dearborn, Michigan 48121-1088
    22720 Michigan Avenue,
    Suite 210,
    Dearborn, Michigan 48124
    Phone (313) 278-3800
    Fax (313) 278-8467--Toll Free 
1-800-856-8701
    www.curminc.com



MTC-00029894

JOSEPH TARTAGLIA
88 FARRELL DRIVE
WATERBURY, CT 06706
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    This letter is to articulate my support for the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. The fact that over $30 million in 
taxpayer dollars has been spent in this case during these trying 
economic times is proof enough that this case has gone on far too 
long. Hopefully, the settlement will signal a return to innovation 
without the threat of government intervention.
    The Department of Justice has done a commendable job in putting 
together an agreement that is fair but won't put Microsoft out of 
business. It is a reasonable conclusion to this case and I support 
it wholeheartedly.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Tartaglia



MTC-00029895

ASSOCIATED BROKERS
OF SUN VALLEY, LLC
Real Estate
January 28.2002
Mike Sampson
P.O. Box 2004
Sum Valley, ID 83353
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft and believe this whole 
antitrust case has become political. I don't see how this benefits 
consumers and businesses--especially at the expense of the 
economy. The tech stocks are down. The technology sector is down. 
The employment numbers are down. Let Microsoft get back to work and 
the government get on with worthwhile business. The only people I 
see benefiting from this case are the lawyers.
    I am a small businessman who employs 25 people. I have greatly 
benefited since 1982 from the products Microsoft produces and feel 
they have been more than fair to me. If their competitors can't put 
out a better product with competitive pricing and service that's 
their problem. I don't see why I should suffer as a small 
businessman.
    After years of extensive negotiations and mediation, Microsoft 
has gone out of their way to settle this case. They went well beyond 
what would be required in any antitrust case. They agreed to design 
future versions of Windows, starting with an interim release of XP, 
to provide a mechanism to make it easier for computer companies, 
consumers and software developers to promote their software within 
Windows.
    Let's end this litigation so that we can focus on what's really 
important. Thanks,
    Sincerely,
    Mike Sampson
    cc: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00029896

Jesse L Clay
1205 Ridgecrest Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take some time to express to you my feelings 
about the proposed settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice. It is about time that the antitrust suit 
ended, and I feel that the terms in the settlement, although harsh 
on Microsoft, will be for the betterment of the computer industry 
and the economy.
    I am pleased with the prospect of the case being resolved, but I 
think it was initiated for all of the wrong reasons. Microsoft's 
competitors had a major role in initiating the litigation, because 
they could not bring to the market a product that matched 
Microsoft's own. The competition should be happy though. The terms 
of the settlement require Microsoft to turn over to their 
competitors source code and design data that are crucial to the 
internal makeup of Windows. Enough is enough. This settlement needs 
m he approved so the industry can get back on its feet, and with 
competitors working more closely with one another, the industry will 
benefit.
    I feel the proposed settlement will benefit all parties 
involved, including Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Clay



MTC-00029897

Carol Morse Sibley
92 Overlook Terrace
Bloomfield, NJ 07003-2917
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft have gone on for too 
long. They are also not very well justified. Microsoft has not only 
created jobs and wealth for our country, but also has made 
technological breakthroughs that have revolutionized the IT sector. 
I do wish that when they come out with new versions of software they 
would always make it compatible with previous versions, which they 
didn't do, for instance, with PowerPoint.
    Still, it's clear that the settlement seems to only help 
competitors gain an edge they were not able to gain beforehand. It 
forced Microsoft to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products, and also grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft software can be 
promoted more easily. It is in the best interests of the

[[Page 28771]]

American public to finalize the settlement. Our nation cannot afford 
further litigation so I urge your office to use its influence to try 
to rein in the nine states that want to drag this case out for even 
longer. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Morse Sibley



MTC-00029898

Nancy A. Waxdahl
305 N. Chicago Avenue
Sioux Falls, SD 57103
605-332-5335 Home/Consultant Phone
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am addressing in this letter the settlement agreement in 
U.S.v. Microsoft, and its benefits for our state and America's 
economy.
    Frankly, this case has run its course after four years and the 
tremendous financial investment by federal and state governments, 
and the Microsoft Corporation, I am aware that nine of the 18 states 
in the antitrust case have chosen not to agree to settle, but I 
think it speaks more loudly and convincingly when nine states and 
the U.S. Department of Justice agree that this case has reached a 
satisfactory conclusion.
    As someone who has served on county and city boards which were 
created a better quality of life, I am very pleased that a positive 
result of this case wilt be the distribution of computers, software 
and support for low income schools in the nation. Our state will 
certainly benefit, particularly among the Indian populations where 
some of America's poorest counties are found. I am also pleased that 
this agreement indicates that this court action will finally end, 
and Microsoft will be able to refocus its energies to providing the 
leadership in information technologies. Because Microsoft has blazed 
the path, America's technology industry has been a cornerstone to 
our nation's economic position in the world. Please do what you can 
to allow this agreement to be implemented so that we can all move 
forward. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Waxdahl



MTC-00029899

JEFFREY Q. OLSON, D.D.S.
Clock Tower Plaza. Suite 211B
2525 West Main St.
Rapld City, SD 57702 605/342.2445
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide my Input on the 
settlement reached recently in U.S.v. Microsoft. I am very pleased 
that this antitrust case has settled after the years and millions 
invested in pursuing every relevant issue involved, I realize that 
it has been a complicated case which has caused the courts to enter 
unfamiliar terrltory in determining the appropriateness of Microsoft 
Corporation's practices as they affect its equally ambitious 
competitors, However, I have been concerned that this case would 
also act to stifle the dynamic ability of Microsoft--or any 
other software firm--to create and successfully market the best 
software which meets the needs of consumers Placing our government 
in charge of micromanaging innovation would certainly limit the 
ability of American software companies to keep our nation ahead in 
technology development, For my dental practice and home use, I have 
relied on Microsoft to provide a competent and versatile system to 
conduct bustness and communicate with friends and family. I hope 
this settlement will allow Microsoft to dived its resources into 
continuing to make Its clients satisfied with its new products.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jeff Olson



MTC-00029900

COMMUNITY COLLEGE
224 NORTH PHILLIPS AVENUE
Sioux FALLS. SD 57104
605/336,1711
FAX: 605/336-2606
1-800-888. 1147
E-Mall: Info @ kee.cc.??d.us
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    My letter is for the public commentary portion of the settlement 
phase in U.S. vs. Microsoft. As an educator in a Sioux Falls 
college, one reason I support the settlement is it offers a chance 
to improve education in South Dakota's and the nation's poorest 
school districts by bringing IT equipment, software, and support to 
them. This will create a ladder to those who've been trapped in the 
IT access gap, and give these children the tools they will need to 
continue their education in our state's colleges.
    I also support the proposed settlement largely because it puts 
an end to an antitrust suit which has not shown consumers have been 
harmed by Microsoft, and because it has found answers to the issues 
which were found to be important by the federal court system. 
Additionally, when a case of this size and important has boon 
running for four years with all of the resources brought into it, I 
think you can safely assume that all valid issues have been brought 
to light and all questions have been answered satisfactorily, 
Apparently the U.S. Department of Justice thinks so, as do half of 
the state attorneys general who brought the case.
    Our own state did not join this antitrust action. Our Attorney 
General felt it lacked enough ?? to warrant using our state's 
limited financial resources to pursue it, I think he was right. 
Considering them arc much more important and pressing matters before 
the Department of Justice, I think it's time to call this matter 
resolved and settled.
    Thank you for your attention to my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Kip Scott



MTC-00029901

Randy
2408 W. Rice Street.
Sioux Fails. SD 57104
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse--Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite "1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear MS. Hesse:
    With the court's approval, our nation will be best served by the 
settlement agreement reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft Corporation. The settlement resolves the issues which were 
found to be legitimate. It resolves an issue which has absorbed four 
years and many millions in taxes from the Justice Department.
    While our nation has endured a recession, one Of the strong 
points in our recovery has been the Microsoft Corporation which has 
Shown great resiliency, even though its resources and attention have 
been split with the threats posed by the antitrust case. Microsoft 
has ?? In one of the most hostile Industries because the entire 
company's energetic focus is on remaining the leader in software 
development. Their competitors are also very wealthy and they are 
equally as determined to replace Microsoft as the leader. Therefore, 
I am not surprised that half of the states in the original suit are 
still in the hunt to bring down Microsoft.
    I am impressed with one Of the gifts available In this 
settlement, Which will target computers and Information technologies 
resources for our nation's most poverty-stricken school districts. 
My home state will probably be rewarded With these computers since 
some of the nation's poorest counties are located in South Dakota. I 
nave been an activist on social development Issues, Including my 
service as Executive Director of the S.D. Alzheimer's Association. I 
support this settlement not only because It ends an action which has 
served its usefulness, but also because it benefits children who 
need the help. I appreciate your consideration of my letter.



MTC-00029902

PAUL SYMENS
STATE SENATOR
3ENATE CH.AMBERS: RESIDENCE: TELEPHONE:
State Capitol RR Box 89 605/a48-5775 (home)
Pierre, SD 575Ol Amherst, SD 57421 605/448-2624 (work)
phone: 773-525I 605/448-5786 (fax)
January 18, 2002
Reacts Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments on the 
settlement of U.S.v. Microsoft and the benefits this settlement will 
have for the nation and our state. South. Dakota has been pro-active 
in making information technologies ubiquitous for

[[Page 28772]]

children and adults throughout our state. Governor Bill Janklow's 
Wiring the Schools Program is making high-speed, wide ban interact 
service available in all schools and public buildings in every town. 
Additionally, with the help of a $670,000 matching grant from the 
Bill and Melinda. Gates Foundation, the state is bringing faculty 
and administrators up to speed on using these systems so that more 
children will benefit. The settlement from the Microsoft antitrust 
case will result in financially disadvantaged school districts 
receiving free software, hardware and technical support. For 
disadvantaged kids, this is a case of what happens when preparedness 
meets opportunity, In South Dakota, where the nation's three poorest 
counties are found, this settlement will have great meaning for 
young people seeking their way in tills world.
    Aside from the educational benefit, I am glad that this ease is 
nearly settled. It has absorbed an incredible amount of taxes and 
four years of productive time to resolve the issues brought to the 
court. Those issues are addressed in this settlement, and I believe 
they should he satisfied. There are those who would like to continue 
this case, I can't imagine that after all of the time and money 
invested to date that anything useful or productive would be the 
result. Please let this case become settled, Microsoft is part of 
the foundation of our nation's economy, and continuing this case 
will work only to weaken a corporation which has been a responsible 
citizen to our nation. Thank you for considering my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Paul N. Symens
    State Senator, District I
    Paid for by Paul Symens for Senate Committe, RR Box 89, Amherst, 
SD 57421



MTC-00029903

South Dakota Network
Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault
P.O. Box 20453.
Sioux Fails, SD 57109.
(605)731.0041.
sdnafvsa @ meleodusa.net
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite t200"
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My comments here are" in favor of the settlement in U.S. 
vs. Microsoft, because the settlement's provisions will be a benefit 
for children in regions" where poverty has prevented them from 
accessing the intenet. The state government of South "Dakota 
has put an emphasis of wiring our public schools and public" 
buildings for the. internet, but obtaining good software and 
hardware, and the support needed to make the system work smoothly, 
have been lacking. The settlement will be of great benefit to this 
program and to the state's children.
    I also feel the settlement is the. right thing for our nation's 
economy, I have used Windows products for work and pleasure, and I 
am satisfied with the products. They empower people to gain the full 
benefit of the information superhighway, and they enable business 
people and nonprofits to correspond on the same technical level, I 
think it is noteworthy that the antitrust case never established a 
finding that consumers were shortchanged by Microsoft.
    Your attention to my letter .is appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Deb Aden



MTC-00029904

Mark Proctor
family & children advocacy services
713 N. Madison Avenue
Picrre, SD 57501
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
That Attorney
Anti-trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite t200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    On the issue of the settlement agreement in US v. Microsoft, 
please allow this agreement to move forward so that this anti-trust 
case is allowed to come to a fair and final conclusion very soon.
    The time and money which has gone into this case, in both the 
government and private sectors, has been more than sufficient to 
render sensible decisions, it is my understanding that the 
settlement agreement addresses each of the issues which needed to be 
addressed by the courts. It is interesting that none of Microsoft's 
practices and policies were determined to be harmful to consumers. 
AS someone who has worked in family and children advocacy projects 
in Western South Dakota, I am pleased that an important aspect of 
this settlement will help to bridge the IT gap among poorer Children 
in the nation.
    The distribution of computers and supplies by Microsoft is in 
keeping with the reputation of the Bill ?? Melinda Gates Foundation. 
The Foundation made a sizeable gift to our state to enhance the 
development of IT services within South Dakota's public school 
systems. And the Foundation has a tremendous record of philanthropic 
contributions [o eliminate diseases worldwide through vaccination 
programs. Despite the criticism by some, the remedy of forcing 
Microsoft to install and maintain computer systems in public schools 
to help the neediest children is profoundly wise and beneficial to 
society.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Proctor



MTC-00029905

South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol,
500 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-6070
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse--Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Public commentary In U.S. v. Microsoft settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Public service, for me, means investing my time and energy to 
help improve the quality of life for the people in my legislative 
district. That is why I have served as a member of the Rossbud Sioux 
Tribal ??, and as a State Senator for 10 years, and now as a State 
House member for my second year.
    My legislative District 27 is home to the pine Ridge Reservation 
and the Ro??obud Reservation, where you will find two of the poorest 
counties in the entire United States, according to the U.S. Census 
Bureau. My district is filled with kids who want to do well in 
school no that they can make a good life for themselves as adults, 
Everybody is encouraged by our Governor's program Wiring the Schools 
because it brings wide band, high speed Internal capabilities to our 
schools. But it is discouraging when you visit the schools and see 
Kids waiting their turn to use systems which are slow, dilapidated 
and not up to the standards of systems used by kids in other parts 
of the United States.
    That is one important reason why I support the settlement 
agreement, because it will bring updated systems, software and 
support to the schools in my district. Another strong point is the 
fact that this antitrust case has been fully scrutinized and debated 
for four years in the federal court system, and the settlement 
agreement speaks to all of the significant issues which have 
survived the court process. I have enough faith in the U.S. Justice 
Department to know that this settlement is a good one, or it would 
not have aigned off on the agreement.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit my opinion on this 
important settlement.
    Sincerely,
    State Representative



MTC-00029906

STEVEN D. SANDVEN
LAW OFFICE5
300 HUNDRED BUILDING
300 NORTH DAKOTA AVENUS, SUITE 516
SIOUX FALLS, SD 57104-6026
PHONE: (605) 332-4408
FAX: (605) 332-4496
CELLULAR: (605) 941-1498
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW / Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Public commentary on U.S.v. Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    In my service as General Counsel to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux 
Tribe at Lake Traverse Reservation, I am concerned with the 
development of tribal schools and the education of Indian children. 
My work also involves services to other tribes in more remote areas 
of western South Dakota, North Dakota, and Kansas where education 
programs are also viewed as essential to the economic survival of 
Indian people and tribal governments.
    Tribal schools throughout this region are becoming increasingly 
interested in new technologies and making sure Indian children are 
not left behind the curve with non-Indian students. That is why I 
believe the Microsoft settlement is going to have untold benefits 
for generations by supplying

[[Page 28773]]

these schools and schools of other low-income students with 
computers, software and technical support they need to operate 
competent systems.
    As an attorney, I have been watching the antitrust case, and I 
have taken an interest in its outcome. While consumers clearly have 
not been hurt by anything Microsoft has done, I think it is 
debatable whether Microsoft was inappropriate in its practices 
against its competitors. I am glad to see that the U.S. Justice 
Department and nine of the 18 states in the case come to terms with 
Microsoft, because I think this case has had enough time and 
resource paid to it to render a just settlement of issues.
    I appreciate your interest in my thoughts on this settlement, 
and I ask for a quick resolution to approve the settlement.
    Steven D. Sandven



MTC-00029907

City of Winnfield
PHONE (318) 628-3939
FAX (318) 628-6773
P. O--BOX 509
WINNFIFLD, LOUISIANA 71453
winn @ imerica.net
Deano Thornton, Mayor
Council Members
TONY ASOSTA
KENNY CALDWELL
WILLIE HOLDEN
ANDRE" HOWARD
MATT MILAM
Date 1-28-02
From?? Fax No.318-428-4773
To?? Fax NO. 202-414-9937
Re: MESSAGE
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division Department of Justice
601 D. Street NW. Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. vs. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I have always been a strong believer in the free enterprise 
system. It is what built this country from the beginning and is 
responsible for making us the economic giant of the world. This case 
has cost taxpayers over thirty million dollars and It is high time 
that it come to an end. Microsoft's competitors need to return to 
competing in the marketplace When they do. the consumer wins and the 
free enterprise system works.
    The last thing the technology sector needs is more 
"lawyers and governmental intervention. Please accept this 
letter as complete support of the settlement and request that this 
case come to an end.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely
    Deano Thomoto
    Mayor
    DT/sp



MTC-00029908

Peripherals Plus Technologies, Inc
317 North Queen Sweet
Lancaster PA 17603
Phone 717.397.9752
Fax 717.397.9905
www.pptnet.com
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Since the Courts reached a settlement on the Microsoft antitrust 
case in November, I was hopeful we could move forward. Now with the 
additional states and competitors coming forward to pursue further 
litigation, I am starting to wonder if this benefits the consumer at 
all or just the business of the competitor's.
    Microsoft has been more than cooperative. They agreed to license 
their Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer 
makers on identical terms and conditions, including price. They also 
agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows, in order to promote non-Microsoft software programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows.
    I urge you to put an end of this litigation fiasco. There are 
more pressing issues upon which the government should be focused.
    Sincerely,
    Byron Wright



MTC-00029909

Ellisport Engineering, Inc.
January 28, 2002
To: Ms. 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 believe the terms of the agreement are reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved. This settlement represents the best 
opportunity for Microsoft and the industry to move forward. To 
continue prosecuting Microsoft is to punish one of the few American 
companies who are helping us to compete in the international arena 
of commerce,
    Please settle this now. It is in the best interest of the 
country.
    Stephen T. Kicinski, PE
    Ellisport Engineering, Inc.
    20501 81st Ave. S.W.
    Vashon, WA 98070
    Telephone (206) 463-5311
    FAX (206) 463-2578
    E-Mall: Ellisportl @ aol.com



MTC-00029910

ReportWare
1460 Manzanita Lane
Reno, Nevada 89509-5207
(888) REPWARE
(775) 827-4494/Fax 827-3213
www.ReportWare.com
Sales @ ReportWare.com
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Please stop this foolishness.
    I feel that, as an attorney and president of a technology firm, 
I have some reasonable understanding of the issues in this case. It 
is my strong feeling that the Government's actions have been overly 
aggressive and caused problems damaging to the whole software 
industry. I have no sympathy for Microsoft's competitors who have 
sought to promote this case. I believe that they have done so in 
order to gain advantage for their otherwise inferior software. I 
have no economic relationship with Microsoft, beyond being in the 
same industry and using their products--for which I pay retail. 
I support Microsoft and this settlement and I hope you will lend 
your support as well. Thank you.
    Yours truly,
    Randy Hanshaw
    9President. ReportWare, Inc.
    RH:gt
    cc: Senator Harry Reid



MTC-00029911

34 Heritage Court
Randolph, NJ 07869
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of Microsoft and by 
extension, the settlement recently proposed by the DOJ. I support 
this settlement because Microsoft deems the terms fair and will 
comply in the hope of regaining a measure of normalcy in the IT 
industry as soon as possible. I am sure that this has been public's 
desire from the very beginning.
    However, I don't believe in the prosecution of Microsoft, in the 
first place, in my mind, this all started due to an overzealous 
prosecutor and competitor's which used the available court system as 
a venue to retain competitive advantage, damn fairness and free 
trade. Microsoft has brought new innovative products to market and 
because they were superior, they've become widespread. Why on earth 
should they be prosecuted for being successful?
    To me the only good thing that has come out of this lawsuit is 
that the public has been able to see the kind of company that 
Microsoft is, one that provides products that the market wants, low 
cost and effective computing solutions. That they bundled their 
software, made it easier for me and I support them for it. It didn't 
kill Netscape (I still use it) or any other competitor. They just 
failed to be as successful as Microsoft, and now they're 
complaining.
    Microsoft's willingness to comply with the terms of this 
agreement and those not even at issue in the lawsuit is a classic 
example of their high caliber. Microsoft has agreed to allow their 
competitors aspects of Windows that will facilitate competitiveness 
such as Microsoft's internal interfaces, protocols and intellectual 
property. To ensure their compliance, Microsoft has agreed to be 
monitored by a Technical Committee.
    In the interest of seeing a restored IT industry and a more 
stabilized economy, please make the necessary decision to

[[Page 28774]]

formalize the proposed settlement, though I personally think it goes 
to far.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Paeschke



MTC-00029912

The Genate
Slate of Iowa
Seventy-ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
STEVEKING
STATE SENATOR
Sixth District
Statehouse: (515) 281-3371
HOME A ADDRESS
3897 Esther Avenue
??, Iowa 51448
Home--(712) 675-4572
Office--(712) 668-2300
FAX--(712) 675-4573
steve king @ legistrate ??
January 28, 2002
COMMITTEES
State Government, Chair
Appropriations
Business & Labor Relations
Commerce
Judiciary Oversight & Communications Appropriations Subcommittee
Vice Chair
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Department
601 D St NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am a State Senator from Iowa and I also the owner of 
construction contracting business. In my capacity as a State Senator 
I am chairman of the state government committee and also serve on 
the commerce committee. I chose to serve on these committees because 
as a business owner I am acutely aware of" negative impact: 
over regulation can have on business It is from this unique 
perspective that I am writing you today to encourage you to settle 
the Microsoft anti-trust case
    The suit against Microsoft was brought under anti-trust laws 
that were developed in at a time in our history when our nation was 
growing into the industrial and economic leader it is today. These 
laws were meant to protect American consumers from harm inflicted by 
monopoly companies. These laws have served their purpose in the 
past. However, in this case, I do not think they apply the 
government and Microsoft's critics have yet to prove consumer harm 
as a result of Microsoft actions or practices.
    As a businessman and strong supporter of our free-market system, 
it is apparent to me that Microsoft's only crime is giving the 
American public a superior product, and therefore has been able to 
build a loyal following of committed users. Assumedly, Microsoft 
worked very hard to develop its products and market. They should not 
be punished for this or for having the business savvy to take action 
to protect their market.
    A closer look at this suit and the lobbying efforts that have 
fueled it will expose disturbing realities. Microsoft's competitors 
do not appreciate that technology consumers are overwhelmingly loyal 
to Microsoft products. However, instead of committing to production 
of new products that may allow them to more successfully compete in 
our free-market, they have banded together and found a way to use 
outdated anti-trust laws for their own purposes.
    The settlement before you is truly a compromise for Microsoft. 
Certainly, Microsoft will be held to the severe provision of this 
settlement, not the least of which is the sharing of intellectual 
property. However, negotiating settlement is the best solution for 
the technology industry and our" economy in general. When this 
settlement is approved it will send a signal to the technology 
industry that the threat of government interference has been lifted.
    Sincerely,
    Senator Steve King



MTC-00029913

C. Cowdery
3926 NE Eighty-Ninth Street
Seattle, Washington 98115
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three long years of court baffles, Microsoft and the 
government have settled an antitrust suit that has profound 
implications for all software publishers, the rest of the 
Information Technology industry, and American consumers. By ending 
this case, the government is actually giving a boost to our sagging 
economy.
    The settlement has teeth. Under the agreement, computer 
manufacturers were granted new rights to configure systems with 
access to various Windows features. Microsoft must also design 
future versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-
Microsoft software and to disclose information about certain 
internal interfaces in Windows.
    The government even went so far as to create an ongoing 
technical oversight committee to review Microsoft software codes and 
books and to test Microsoft compliance to ensure that Microsoft 
abides by the agreement. This will help to promote fairness. In 
conclusion, I don't think it will ever be necessary for the federal 
government to ever bring any more litigation against Microsoft 
beyond this agreement. This agreement is more than fair and 
reasonable and was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a 
court appointed mediator.
    Sincerely,
    C. Cowdery



MTC-00029914

RJA Pollinating Co.
P.O. BOX 58 
450 West Main St.
Westmorland, CA 92281
760-344-3726
760-344-3091
FAX 760-344-0012
TO: MA Renata B. Hesse
Location: U.S. Dept by Justice--Antitrust Division
Telephone:
FAX: 202 616 9937
Date: 1-28-02 
Comments:
Total Number of Pages Sent: 2
Approval:
RJA Pollinating Co.
P.O. Box 58 450
West Main St.
Westmorland, CA 92281
760-344-3726
760-344-3091 FAX 760-344-0012
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B, Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
VIA FACSIMILE: 202-816-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a concerned citizen with an eye for government waste, I 
strongly believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft has been 
a squandering of public resources. I also believe this was brought 
on by those who have a liberal bias and are against corporate 
America. Therefore, I support the agreement between Microsoft and 
the nine plaintiff states.
    As you know, our antitrust laws are supposed to protect 
consumers, not competitors, What's going on here is that our 
government is penalizing Microsoft for its success, The consequences 
are far ranging. If the United States government can attack one of 
the most successful companies in America, who's next?
    As a believer in open markets and opponent of government 
intrusion, I support "the Microsoft settlement.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Richard J. Ashcroft



MTC-00029915

1000 Chesterbrook Boulevard,
Suite 101
Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to hear about the settlement that has been worked out 
with Microsoft. It has taken three long years to finally reach an 
agreement like this that is fair for both sides. I hope that the 
Federal government will let this be it and finally put the matter to 
rest.
    The settlement is fair. First of all, Microsoft will adhere to a 
uniform pricing list when licensing Windows out to the larger 
computer vendors in the United States. Also, Microsoft has agreed 
not to retaliate against companies that promote or use non-Microsoft 
products. Most importantly, Microsoft has agreed to share sensitive 
information with its competitors; information that will allow them 
to more easily place their own programs on the Windows operating 
system.
    I know that many people who daily depend on Microsoft products 
will write to you about this matter. I hope that you take their and 
my opinions into account. I support the settlement, and look forward 
to seeing the suit come to an end. As a consumer and a

[[Page 28775]]

user of Microsoft products, I do not feel that I am being 
"clobbered" by Microsoft. Many of their competitors 
would like you to think this is the case. Since many other companies 
can't effectively compete with their own inferior products, they 
want the taxpayers to help them get rid of Microsoft by way of a 
government breakup. Enough is enough, settle the lawsuit and allow 
Microsoft to get on with creating more innovative products!!
    Sincerely,
    Marc T Nettles
    Cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00029916

Denterlein Worldwide
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
C/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    At a time when innovation in the computer technology industry 
should be booming the decision with regard to U.S. v Microsoft 
certainly makes it very difficult for companies to find the 
investment dollars to develop software. Limiting the ability of 
companies competing, the settlement provides loopholes which will 
probably keep this issue in litigation for years. Microsoft's 
monopoly has grown stronger. Its Windows operating system and Office 
Suite have higher than 90% usage. It is clear that operating systems 
which may have posed a threat and others that might have competed 
are no longer a concern.
    If competition is precluded it is very unlikely venture capital 
will be available. Investors historically will avoid the risk 
involved when potential future development is impeded by a monopoly, 
Consumers are affected as well be, cause they will not find 
affordable products in the marketplace, The already sluggish job 
market and economy certainly does not reflect the potential in the 
industry if a monopoly did not exit.
    It is clear that Microsoft hopes to expand to web services, 
financial, cable and the like, perhaps even the interact. Without 
venture capital companies will be unable to creatively address 
emerging markets, At a time when government on all levels faces 
serious challenges involving security and privacy issues they will 
be limited in the software they can use if it is not compatible with 
Windows.
    There is nothing the settlement which will hinder Microsoft. It 
will be business as usual. The settlement requires Microsoft to 
share technological information unless Microsoft determines that 
sharing the information might harm its security or software. In 
addition Microsoft, due to its monopoly and dominant market share, 
dictates the technologies, which will be compatible with Windows.
    Ten Liberty Square
    Boston. MA 02109
    P: 617 482 0042
    ?? 617 357 6911
    gerl @ denterleinworldwide.com
    One of the three person technical committee will be selected by 
Microsoft. The Department of Justice will choose a second member and 
they must agree on the third member. There is no question that 
companies will be less inclined to take on a monopoly when their 
future business, if the challenge fails, may well depend on that 
company. Microsoft will continue to be able to charge whatever it 
wants for its products, prices will skyrocket.
    The technical committee must identify violations of the 
agreement. No findings may be admitted into court in enforcement 
proceedings and compliance is only for five years. This seems a 
short time for such a flagrant violation of antitrust law.
    After all the years examining this important issue it would seem 
a better solution could be found. I appreciate your interest. If 
there is any additional information with which I may be of 
assistance, please contact me,
    Sincerely,
    Geri Denterlein
    President
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney General



MTC-00029917

Lynch Associates, LLC
Honorable Colleen Koltar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar,Kotelly,
    I am writing in regards to the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. In the decision on U.S.v. 
Microsoft it appears that the settlement does not fully resolve 
Microsoft's monopoly of the market and will continue to lead to 
predatory, practices.
    Microsoft's "bolting" of applications to their 
software which was not terminated in the settlement has maintained 
an unfair advantage for Microsoft in the distribution of these 
applications. These types of practices don't create an environment 
of fair competition, which creates a problem not only for their 
competitors but also eventually for consumers.
    It is clear that Microsoft hopes to expand its monopoly to web 
services, financial, cable and the like, perhaps even the Internet. 
If we let Microsoft continue this expansion ultimately consumers 
will have to pay inflated prices for these products that we will 
only become more dependant on. Antitrust laws were created to avoid 
business being conducted in such a manner.
    This deal also threatens to curtail innovation in an industry 
that is a vital part of our new economy. At a time when serious 
challenges face government and corporations they will be seriously 
handicapped in choosing the high value systems they need for privacy 
and security because compatibility with Windows does not exist.
    The enforcement mechanisms in the settlement leave Microsoft 
free to do whatever it wants. The three person technical committee 
will only serve as a kangaroo court, which further threatens the 
integrity of enforceability. Analysts from many sectors of the 
technology industry have indicated the lack of impact the settlement 
will have and will result in minuet changes in Microsoft's 
practices.
    10 Liberty Square, 5th Floor
    Boston, Massachusetts 02109
    Telephone: 617.574.3399
    Facsimile: 617.695.0173
    Enforcing federal antitrust laws is vital to maintaining the 
integrity of free markets, It is important that we continue to 
enforce them to protect the welfare of consumers and the 
fundamentals that contribute to what makes our country's industries 
great. I appreciate you taking your time to examine this important 
matter. If there is any additional information I can provide for 
you, please contact me
    Sincerely,
    Anne Lynch
    Lynch Associates
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney General Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts



MTC-00029918

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
256 FREEPORT STREET
DORCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 02122
TELEPHONE; (617) 436-3710
FAX: (617) 436-3299
TOLL FREE: (800) 218-0015
WEBSITE: www, ibew103, corm
January 25, 2002
The Honorable Coleen 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 20540-000:t
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    After many years of investigating Microsoft with regard to 
monopoly issues, a settlement has been struck which appears to 
continue that monopoly. Limiting the ability of other companies to 
compete, the settlement provides loopholes, which wilt probably keep 
this issue in litigation for years.
    The longer it takes for competition to be permitted the less 
likely it is for those interested in investing venture capital to 
risk taking a chance on potential future development by companies 
hoping to compete. The result is that not only are consumers 
affected in that they will be unable to buy an affordable product, 
but the already sluggish job market will fail to reflect the 
potential of the industry.
    It is clear that Microsoft hopes to expand its monopoly to web 
services, financial, cable and the like, perhaps even the internet. 
Without venture capital companies will be unable to creatively 
address emerging markets.
    Although the agreement precludes Microsoft from paying a vendor 
to keep it from developing or distributing software that would 
compete, Microsoft is the determining body when an exception is 
identified. Likewise Microsoft: must share technological information 
unless Microsoft determines the

[[Page 28776]]

information may harm its security or software. In addition 
Microsoft, due to its monopoly and dominant market share, dictates 
the technologies, which will be compatible with Windows.
    The Honorable Coleen Kollar-Kotelly
    January 25, 2002
    At a time when serious challenges face government and 
corporations they will be seriously handicapped in choosing the high 
value systems they need for privacy and security because 
compatibility with Windows does not exist.
    Although the technical committee will oversee the process, 
Microsoft will choose one of its three members. The Department of 
Justice will choose a second and they must agree on the third 
member. There is no question that companies will be less inclined to 
take on a monopoly when their future business may well depend on the 
company. Given that Microsoft will continue to be able to charge 
whatever it wants for its products, prices will skyrocket. The 
technical committee of three must identify violations of the 
agreement. No findings may be admitted into court in enforcement 
proceedings and compliance is only for five years. This seems a 
short time for such a flagrant violation of antitrust law.
    After all the years examining this important issue it would seem 
a better solution could be found. I appreciate your interest. If 
there is any additional information with which I may be of 
assistance, please contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Richard P. Gambino
    Business Manager
    cc: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney General



MTC-00029919

January 23, 2002
CARROLL LOGISTIC8 INC
P.O. Box 4797
Tisbury, MA 02568
TEL 617-945-1600
FAX 617-945-2416
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
C/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing with regard to the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v Microsoft. It appears 
to violate antitrust law. Microsoft has a monopoly now and will be 
permitted to expand it with regard to emerging markets.
    The fact that Microsoft Is free to bolt financial services, 
cable services or even the internet to Its Microsoft Windows is a 
great concern. As companies develop software they will be unable to 
address the issue of affordability due to the dependency on Windows 
technology to function.
    Microsoft may not pay a vendor to keep them from developing or 
distributing software that would compete, however Microsoft is the 
determining body when an exception is identified. Likewise Microsoft 
must share technological information unless Microsoft determines the 
Information may harm Microsoft security or software. In addition 
Microsoft, due to its monopoly and dominant market share, dictates 
the technologies, which will be compatible with Windows. Governments 
and corporations will be unable to choose high value systems they 
need for privacy and security if that compatibility does not exist.
    Half of the technical committee will be appointed by Microsoft. 
The Department of Justice and Microsoft each appoint one member 
while they must agree on the third member. There is no question that 
companies will be less inclined to take on a monopoly when their 
future business may well depend on that company. Given that 
Microsoft will continue to be able to charge whatever it wants for 
its products, prices will skyrocket.
    The technical committee of three must identify violations of the 
agreement. No findings may be admitted into court in enforcement 
proceedings and compliance is only for five years. This seems a 
short time for such a flagrant violation of antitrust law. After 
many years of examining this important issue I would think a better 
solution could be found. I appreciate your Interest. If there is any 
additional Information with which I may be of assistance, please 
contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas R Carroll
    PO Box 4797
    264 Sandpiper Lane
    Vineyard Haven, MA 02568
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney/General



MTC-00029920

allan associates
six osmanosen avenue
ball, massachusetts 02045
(781) 925-6388
January 22,2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
US District Court
District of Columbia
C/o Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Div.
US Dept. of Justice
601 D St. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: US v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The settlement agreed to by the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft appears to fly in the face of antitrust laws. Although the 
examination of this problem took a number of years, the results seem 
inadequate and the penalties less than one would expect for such 
serious violations of the law. Among the areas which are of concern:
    * Microsoft will determine if any company's technology violates 
Microsoft security or software. This would preclude a vendor from 
distributing or developing software as proscribed by the settlement.
    * Microsoft may bolt financial, cable services or even the 
internet to Windows, creating a dependency on Windows technology for 
all software developers.
    * The technical committee which will oversee implementation will 
be stacked in favor of Microsoft, as there will be one member 
appointed by Microsoft, another appointed by the Department of 
Justice and a third on whom both entities must agree.
    * The process to" file a complaint would be unlikely to 
attract many businesses challenging Microsoft, as the most probable 
result would be the company then still having to deal with 
Microsoft.
    * Consumers will bear the brunt of this decision, as they will 
find the expense of software reflected in the monopoly Microsoft 
will hold in its development.
    * At a time when governments and corporations are looking to 
develop software to insure privacy and security it will be 
impossible if compatibility with Microsoft Windows does not exist.
    I am pleased that Attorney General Tom Reilly has agreed to 
reject the settlement and is pursuing all avenues to assist 
individuals and businesses in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I 
appreciate your attention. Please contact me if I may be of 
assistance.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia M. Allan
    CC: Attorney General Tom Reilly



MTC-00029921

Law Offices of
Mark T. Collins
329D Boston Post Road Millbrook Park
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
Telephone (978) 443-7677
January 24, 2002
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia
C/O Ms. Renata B. Hesse
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    With regard to the settlement of the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in U--S--v Microsoft I would like to raise a few 
issues. It appears Microsoft will continue to have a monopoly in the 
marketplace. Expansion will only increase the corporation's ability 
to intimidate smaller companies as they make an effort to produce 
software at more affordable prices.
    At a time when development of financial services, updated cable 
services and the internet are offering challenges to many small and 
midsized companies to be creative in new uses, the inability of a 
company to progress without compatibility with Microsoft is a major 
stumbling block. Microsoft in theory may not keep a vendor from 
developing or distributing software, even if it might be 
competition, but Microsoft itself will determine if a company's 
information technology might adversely affect Microsoft's security 
or its software.
    Compatibility with Microsoft Windows is essential and Microsoft 
makes the determination as to which technologies will be compatible 
thus limiting the ability for companies whose technologies are not 
included to procede.
    The oversight of the settlement offers additional problems in 
that Microsoft will be responsible for the appointment of one 
individual on the technical committee. In addition the Department of 
Justice appoints one other and the two must agree on the third. The 
committee must identify violations of the settlement. In addition it 
must hear

[[Page 28777]]

complaints from the companies whose products are not compatible. It 
is highly unlikely that a challenge will be made against a company 
which essentially controls the monopoly which at some point may well 
control the smaller companies ability to develop future software,
    Although Microsoft will comply with these lenient restrictions 
it will only be required for five years. This seems a short time for 
a penalty for violating antitrust law, Please contact me if you have 
any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Mark T. Collins
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly
    Attorney General
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts



MTC-00029922

THE LIBERTY SOUARE GROUP
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
C/O Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite l200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: US v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I realize there has been discussion over many years concerning 
this issue. It does seem a more equitable solution could have been 
reached in light of antitrust laws. As it stands now, Microsoft can 
still bolt financial services, cable or even the internet to Windows 
hindering competition. The fact that Microsoft will determine what 
technologies will be compatible with Windows makes it very difficult 
for companies to develop software or for that matter find capital 
investors to even be interested in their companies.
    As it stands now both Microsoft Windows and Office Suites enjoy 
a 90% user status. Expansion into other markets will expand that 
usage even more. At a time when computer technology should be 
expanding to address security and privacy issues in government and 
corporations, the inability to compete is certainly not making it 
the environment good for growth. The settlement provides many 
loopholes which will probably keep the issue in litigation for 
years.
    Without competition it is very likely venture capital will be 
unavailable. The affect on consumers will be reflected in the high 
cost of software. The already sluggish job market and economy 
certainly does not reflect the potential in the computer software 
market. It is clear that Microsoft plans to expand to financial, 
cable and the internet, expanding its monopoly. There is nothing in 
the settlement which will hinder Microsoft.
    One of the three people on the technical committee will be 
selected by Microsoft. The Department of Justice will choose a 
second member and they must agree on the third member. It is 
apparent that companies will be reluctant to take on a monopoly when 
their future business may well depend on that company. Microsoft 
will continue to be able to charge whatever it wants for its 
products, prices will skyrocket.
    This issue has been discussed for many years. It seems a more 
equitable solution could be determined, if I may be of any 
assistance, please contact me,
    Sincerely,
    Scott M. Ferson
    President
    Liberty Square Group
    CC: Attorney General Tom Reilly



MTC-00029923

JENNIFER E. LAWRENCE, ESQ.
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing in regards to the anticipated settlement with the 
Microsoft Corporation, This proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft to 
use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets. After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation 
against Microsoft, it seems a more equitable solution can be 
reached.
    The deal fails to meet the appellate court's remedy standards, 
which are clearly laid out by the appellate court. The following are 
some examples of how the deal fails to meet the standards:
    1. The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found 
to be illegal by the appellate court, such as the finding that 
Microsoft's practice of bolting applications to Windows through the 
practice of "commingling code" was a violation of 
antitrust law. This was considered by many to be among the most 
significant violations of the law, but the settlement does not 
mention it.
    2. The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    3. The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors and to take the intellectual property of 
competitors doing business with Microsoft.
    4. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and 
instead guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed 
to expand into new markets. The settlement is also fiddled with 
loopholes making the enforceability of the settlement questionable.
    The agreement requires Microsoft to share technical information 
with competitors so that non-Microsoft software will work on Windows 
operating systems. However, Microsoft is not required to do so if it 
may harm the security or software licensing. The determiner of this 
harm? Microsoft. The settlement also says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay a software 
vendor not to develop software that would compete with its products. 
However, another provision permits those payments and deals when 
they are "reasonably necessary." Again who determines 
this "reasonably necessary?" Microsoft.
    The enforcement provisions in the settlement are weak and leave 
Microsoft virtually unaccountable.
    Microsoft is only subject to comply with the terms of the 
agreement for a mere five years. Hardly an adequate amount of time 
for a corporation found guilty of violating antitrust laws. The 
three-person committee that is being assembled to identify 
violations of the agreement will have nearly no effect since the 
work of the committee cannot be admitted into court in any 
enforcement proceeding.
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in U.S.v. Microsoft falls short of what would be prudent 
and necessary in rectifying Microsoft's monopoly and changing their 
current practices.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Jennifer E. Lawrence, Esq.



MTC-00029924

4712 Ferncreek Drive
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would tike to express some of my opinions regarding the 
settlement agreement between your Department and Microsoft. I feel 
that it is fair, reasonable, and extensive. I do not see the need 
for further federal action, especially when nine states have 
approved the agreement. Microsoft is currently negotiating with the 
opposing states to reach a conclusion. Not only does this agreement 
address the issues that brought about the lawsuits, but it provides 
direction in dealing with future problems as weft.
    Although the settlement calls for concessions that make 
antitrust precedent, Microsoft has agreed in an effort to end this 
case sooner rather than later. The company will stop retaliating 
against those that design or p ore non-Microsoft programs, end will 
allow computer makers to configure Windows so as to promote those 
programs. Most importantly, a technical oversight committee will 
ensure Microsoft's compliance with these concessions, and 
competitors will be allowed to sue Microsoft directly if they feel 
they've been treated unfairly.
    I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue. 
We must bring certainty and stability back to the IT sector. This 
agreement will allow the market, the industry, and the economy to 
move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Erwin Oetken



MTC-00029925

Henry Kath P.O. Box 1920
Cottonwood, CA 96022-0351
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 28778]]

    As a citizen of California I am very disappointed that the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
has not been accepted by my state. I believe that this suit has gone 
much farther than was ever appropriate. It is my opinion that the 
alleged crimes committed by this company are much less severe than a 
number of people have made them out to be. Microsoft does not 
deserve the callous treatment that they have been given, and the 
continuation of this already protracted suit will not benefit either 
the United States as a whole or the state of California.
    The proposed settlement is well thought out and is a fair 
conclusion to this unfortunate litigation. Microsoft will not commit 
any further anti-trust infringements, the company will be monitored 
by a three-man oversight committee which will ensure that all 
business tactics engaged by the company in future are fair and do 
not lean towards monopolistic practices. The settlement ensures that 
Microsoft will not strike back against any company that develops 
products that compete against its own. And finally, Microsoft will 
develop all future versions of Windows to work more completely with 
the products of competing companies. This settlement will remedy any 
problems that any of Microsoft's competitors may have experienced 
when dealing with this company. All of the states should jump at the 
chance to accept the terms and finalize this costly litigation.
    I understand the need to protect businesses and to ensure that 
there is a fair playing field for everyone. However, free enterprise 
must be protected. Without it, we lose the very fabric upon which we 
have built this nation. I believe that we need to move forward as a 
nation and to do so we need this settlement. Thank you for the work 
that you have done to bring this agreement about and for ensuring 
that we do not ring in another year with this costly litigation 
hanging around our necks.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Kath



MTC-00029926

Elliott.
US Department of Justice
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Elliott Davis Technology Solutions, LLC
1200 Woodruff Rd. Suite C40
P.O. Box 5088
Greenville, SC 29606-6088
Phone 864,281 7440
Fax 864.987.0180
1866281,74.10
January 22, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I personally believe that this lawsuit against Microsoft is 
better settled. Even though many of the points enumerated in the 
suit were valid, the litigation was quickly getting out of control 
and could have resulted in a lot of unnecessary complications for 
both Microsoft and for the IT businesses in general.
    The points of the suit have been adequately addressed in the 
settlement. The settlement, for example, requires more responsible 
and flexible attitudes by Microsoft towards its OEM licensees as 
well as to third party software developers, who will now be able to 
take advantage of disclosure of Microsoft software code. Microsoft's 
competition should be elated at this.
    I am therefore writing in support of the settlement and hope 
that this kind of lawsuit be prevented in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Johnson
    Partner



MTC-00029927

LS Consulting
Date: January 21, 2002
Renate Hesse
Triel Attorney
Antirust Division
Department of Justice
?? D Street NW. ?? 1200
Washington, DC 20550
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    The Microsoft ?? case reminds me of the novel ?? Shrugged, 
written by Ayn Rand In the novel, industral competitors turn to the 
govenment and empower it to choose ?? and losers in the marketplace.
    Without question, Microsoft's primary competitors have joined 
into an unholy zilance with the judicial ?? of government, in an 
effort to target the success of Microsoft are its popular software 
You might also want to reference ?? Bastiat's The Law, to gain his 
insights on how government attempts to choose winners and losers in 
the marketplace.
    I have been intimately involved with personal computers and the 
software that drives them since the very ??. As a computer 
consultant and a database software developer for nearly twenty 
years, I would be amused by government lawyers with limited computer 
skills--and an even more limited grasp of the actual inner 
working of software--trying to dictate policy to a marketplace 
that literally changes every day. If the slakes weren't: so high.
    As an active an informed citizen, I have a thorough 
understanding of the roles the branches of government are to play in 
our society, and the businese, of choosing winners and losers in the 
marketplace is not a function of government, in belongs to the 
American consumer. Sign off on the proposed settlement before you in 
this case and lot us do our work Sincerely,
    Loras Schulte
    In His ??



MTC-00029928

NASH FINCH COMPANY
Cedar Rapids Distribution Center
Rob Reinert
Regional Pricing Manager
319-743-4245
Ms. Ronata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Ami-trust
601 "D" Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I have been informed that under the Tunney Act you are accepting 
public comment on the United State's agreement with the Microsoft 
Corporation. I am writing to offer my views on this matter. I work 
for a company called Nash-Finch that is based in Minneapolis and 
operates a large chain of grocery stores in the upper Midwest and 
wholesale operations in more than thirty states. As Regional Pricing 
Manager I have seen first hand the benefits of computer innovations. 
It seems that we are constantly being presented with new tools that 
allow us to maintain better control of our inventory and maintain/
improve gross margins:
    The future holds many exciting things for consumers and 
lousiness when it comes to technology. The last few years have 
taught us theft almost anything is possible when technicians are 
allowed to freely ?? and create. Future innovations will allow 
businesses to operate more efficiently and help our economy as we 
work out of our current recession.
    This case has cruised questions throughout the entire industry 
as it watches to see if the government will successfully gain new 
power to regulate this industry. It is clear in the reports that I 
have read that the settlement currently on the table is fair. It 
appears that any allegations against Microsoft that have been shown 
to have merit in court are fairly remedied in the settlement.
    This settlement provides a good resolution and it allows the 
technology industry as a whole to get on the move again.
    Your consideration is appreciated.
    RO. Box 549
    Cedar Rapids, IA. 52406
    1201 Blairs Ferry Rand N.E.
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52402.
    Ph. 319-393-1880
Fx. 319-393-2223
    Sincerely.
    Rob Reinert
    Customer Satisfaction is ACWAYS First



MTC-00029929

January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    Like so many Americans, I am an investor in the stock market and 
have been financially hurt by the downturn this past year. As an 
individual investor, I have made every effort to do my part to 
prevent an even greater drop in the markets by maintaining my 
holdings without over-reacting. While we enjoyed a relatively minor 
upswing recently, the markets once again dropped following the 
national media attention of the Enron bankruptcy. In the face of so 
much negative news, it is getting more and more difficult for 
investors to optinistically believe the markets have hit the bottom 
and are in a recovery.
    From an economic standpoint, you have the ability to send a 
message which can only be construed as good by the media and the 
American public. I am referring to the Microsoft lawsuit. A proposed 
settlement in this case is before you. Most of the parties involved 
in this case are in agreement to settle this case based on the 
proposal presented. Please take this opportunity to do your part and 
sign on to the proposed settlement. By putting and and to this 
lawsuit, you allow the tech industry the chance to move forward. You 
will also create

[[Page 28779]]

much needed oprimism for a ?? point in our times of economic 
struggles.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Keith ??
    4815 Grand Avenue
    Des Moines, Iowa 50312
    515 255-8328



MTC-00029930

ERIG J. KFOURY. EGQ.
January 24, 2002
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S, District Court, District of Columbia
C/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    Please accept this letter of concern with regard to the terms of 
the settlement being proposed by the United States Department of 
Justice and Microsoft Corporation. Acceptance of this settlement 
will not dissuade Microsoft from continuing to pursue its 
established objective of market dominance, and, more importantly, 
will encourage other businesses to follow the lead in new and 
different markets without fear of any reprisals or Interference from 
the government, in all, it is a seemingly toothless me measure of 
exactitude that undermines the historical good achieved by the 
antitrust regulations of which Microsoft was duly found to be in 
violation.
    The settlement purports to force Microsoft to share key 
information with competitors as a way of braking the stranglehold 
the company enjoys with its Windows product. Howover, it need only 
do so if Microsoft, itself, determines such divulgence would not 
hurt its security or product licensing. Further, the continued 
market dependency c Windows created by the fact Microsoft can bolt 
it to financial and cable services, as wall as, the internet will 
adversely affect the affordability of new software being developed 
by other companies. As such, any potential competition will be 
priced out of the market and Microsoft will stand alone--the 
essence of a true monopoly.
    Though there are other areas of the settlement that are 
problematic, the final concern sterns from the notion that there can 
be a limit to the amount of time (e.g., five years) an antitrust 
violator should be subject to enforcement. If the government agrees 
to terms with a corporation to correct conditions set by 
monopolistic practices, there should be no expiration data with 
regard to the commitment to those terms.
    An antitrust violation has been established. Irrespective of 
penalizing the violator, an equitable resolution must be found that 
opens up the market and ensures it remains a place where other 
businesses and entrepreneurs have a chance to succeed. This proposed 
settlement does not amount to such a resolution.
    Very truly yours,
    Eric J. Kfoury, Esq.
    Co: Honorable Thomas Reilly, Attorney General Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts



MTC-00029931

JAN-25-02 14:31
FROM:
ID: PAGE 2
SALOMON SMITH BARNEY
A member of Columbia
Ho??orable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
C/o Renata B. Hesse
A?? Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing with regard to the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v Microsoft. It appears 
to violate antitrust law. Microsoft has a monopoly now and will be 
permitted to expand it with regard to emerging markets.
    The fact that Microsoft is free to bolt financial services, 
cable services or even the internet to its Microsoft Windows is 
appalling. As companies develop software they will be unable to 
address the issue of affordability in working to help consumers find 
a lower priced product due to the dependency on Windows technology 
to function.
    Microsoft may not pay a vendor to keep them from developing or 
distributing software, which would compete, however Microsoft is the 
determining body when an exception is identified, Likewise, 
Microsoft must stare technological information unless Microsoft 
determines the information may harm Microsoft security or software, 
In addition, Microsoft, due to its monopoly and dominant market 
share, dictates the technologies, which will be compatible with 
Windows. Governments and corporations will be unable to choose high 
value systems they need for privacy and security if that 
compatibility does not ??.
    The three person technical committee, which will be appointed is 
inordinately weighted in favor of Microsoft as the department of 
Justice and Microsoft each appoint one member while they must agree 
on the third member. There is no question that companies will be 
less inclined to take on a monopoly when their future business may 
well depend on that company. Given that Microsoft will continue to 
be able to charge whatever it wants for its products, prices will 
skyrocket.
    The technical committee of three must identify violation, of the 
agreement. No lindings may be admitted into court in enforcement 
proceedings and compliance is only for five years. This seems a 
short time for such a flagrant violation of antitrust law.
    After many years of examining this important issue, I would 
think a better solution could be found, I appreciate your interest. 
If there is any additional information with which I may be of 
assistance, please contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Karen I, Macdonald
    Financial Consultant
    SALOMON SMI?? BARNEY A member of citigroup
    28 State Street
    Beaten, MA 02109
    617-570-9430 / 800-235-1205 / 
617-570-945R fax
    e-mail Karen ??mac??onald @ rssmb.com



MTC-00029932

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON O2133??1054
RONALD MARIANO
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
SRD NORFOLK DISTRICT
DISTRICT: (??17) 328-5166
E-Mail: Rep.RonaldM??riano @ hou.state.??.us
Chairman
Committee on Insurance
STATE HOUSE, ROOM 254
TEL. (617) 722-2220
FAX (617) 722-2821
January 25, 2002
The Honorable 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 20530-000t
    Dear Judge Kollar-Ketelly,
    I am writing with regard to the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v Microsoft. It appears 
that this settlement will enable Microsoft to continue to expand its 
monopoly with regard to emerging markets and may violate antitrust 
laws.
    Microsoft's ability to bolt financial services, cable services 
and the Internet to its Microsoft Windows program is of great 
concern. As companies develop software, they will be unable to 
address the issue of affordability due to the dependency on Windows 
technology. Microsoft is required to share technological information 
unless they determine the information may harm their security or 
software. Additionally, Microsoft dictates the technologies, which 
will be compatible with Windows. As such entities will be unable to 
choose high value systems they need for privacy and security if that 
compatibility doesn't exist.
    As I feel that this agreement raises significant questions 
affecting the equity and fairness of the settlement, I ask for your 
consideration of a more appropriate solution to this matter. Thank 
you for your time mad attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    RONALD MARIANO
State Representative
Cc: The Honorable Thomas Reilly, Massachusetts Attorney General



MTC-00029933

FROM:
FAX NO.:Jul. 26 2001 06:26PM P1
Wake Forest Town Commission
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a member of the Wake Forest Board of Commissioners, I am 
concerned that the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit has dragged on too 
long and we need to settle it now. I am elected to represent all the 
people in Wake Forest, and I am concerned that everyone's jobs are 
being threatened by the recession. Microsoft products are the 
backbone of business and industry--and they help offices run 
efficiently throughout our community.

[[Page 28780]]

    I am opposed to prolonging the lawsuit in any way. The suit 
needs to be resolved... and resolved now] Many of our commuting 
citizens work in the Research Triangle Park. High tech solutions for 
health care, business and communications firms are developed here in 
the Triangle. However, the ability of these companies to be 
innovative in creating solutions, and productive in the creation of 
jobs, hinges upon moving beyond excessive litigation.
    Let's face the fact that both parties want the suit to end. 
Microsoft and the federal government are in agreement on all points 
of the settlement. I want to strongly urge Judge Kollar Kotelly to 
promptly approve the settlement. This lawsuit has cost businesses 
and local governments untold millions in lost revenues. Let's stop 
the bleeding.
    Let's move beyond this case and move the economy forward.
    Sincerely,
    Kim Marshall
    Mayor Pro Tempore
    401 Owen Avenue- Wake Forest, NC 27587



MTC-00029934

Jan 28 02 02:38p p. 1
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Attention: Renata Hesse
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge,
    It is time for the Anti-trust lawsuit" against Microsoft 
to end.
    Our antitrust laws were designed and enacted in order to protect 
the citizens and consumers of the United States.
    The Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit was originally pushed by its 
competitors and their claims they were working in the interest of 
consumers. I do not believe that the consumers were clamoring for 
this lawsuit. I wonder how prolonging these proceedings will benefit 
consumers?
    The Federal Government has spent millions of dollars on this 
antitrust case. Microsoft has probably spent several times as much 
defending itself against this claim filed by the government.
    These costs will no doubt be passed on to the consumer, the same 
consumer the antitrust laws are supposed to benefit.
    I believe this case has cost enough and should be settled once 
and for all.
    Thanks for your consideration and your acceptance of my comments 
as part of the public comment period for the case.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth Mellen
    21000 West 180th Street-
    Olathe, KS 66062



MTC-00029935

15 Riverpoint Road
Hannibal, MO 63401
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I understand that Microsoft and the Justice Department have 
reached a proposed settlement of their antitrust case, and I want 
you to know that I support the settlement.
    I wish my letter were sent for the purpose of thanking you for 
dismissing the case. Microsoft has incurred substantial expenditures 
of time and money for no reason other than to defend the fact that 
they are big and they are successful. It is a shame that Microsoft's 
ability to defend itself in Court was thwarted by a judge with an 
axe to grind. The case should have been thrown out before evidence 
was ever presented.
    The settlement proposed clearly addresses the allegations of 
anticompetitive behavior by promoting greater consumer choice and 
opening areas to greater degrees of competition from non-Microsoft 
software programs. After implementation of the settlement agreement, 
Microsoft Windows operating systems will be subject to competition 
in areas such as messaging and the Internet from non-Microsoft 
programs.
    In addition to responding to the allegations of antitrust 
violations, Microsoft has placed a settlement on the table that 
makes concessions regarding products and practices that were never 
even at issue in the suit. I fail to see the need to punish 
Microsoft by continuing the Case.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029936

January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear AG Ashcroft,
    While I agree that this settlement appears better than a 
perpetuation of this ill-advised lawsuit, I believe that the 
settlement goes too far. In spite of the fact that Microsoft has 
agreed to its terms, I do not see the necessity of forcing them to 
release any more of their source code to developers than they had 
previous to the suit. This code is proprietary and Microsoft is 
entitled to keep it so. This consideration aside, I am at least 
pleased that the lawsuit and all that it entailed will soon be over. 
On the whole, however, I am hopeful that our government will not be 
as quick to interject itself into the private marketplace in the 
future as it has here. If Microsoft supports this suit, than I will.
    I am appreciative of the opportunity afforded me to voice my 
opinion of this settlement, and I must stress here that this opinion 
is my own. However, the issue of forcing a company to relinquish 
even a small piece of its proprietary intellectual property, simply 
because its competitors cannot develop better products on their own, 
is of some concern.
    Sincerely,
    Charlie Butler
    St. Exchange Engineer
    Agilera, Inc.
    Cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    1400 Browning Road
    Suite 150
    Columbia, South Carolina 29210
    PHONEu 803.770.1800
    www.8gilera.com



MTC-00029937

804 Stirling Road
Silver Spring, MD 20901
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John. Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Justice agreed 
to terms on a proposed settlement that will bring an end to the 
three-year antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft. I support this 
settlement because it ends the litigation against Microsoft, and 
allows them to focus even more on producing innovative products.
    The settlement goes further than k should have, in particular as 
regards intellectual property, which Microsoft will have to disclose 
to its competitors. In order to end this messy litigation process, 
Microsoft has actually agreed to give to its competitors source code 
and other design information that is critical to the internal 
structure of Windows. While that does not fit the mold of a free 
market economy, it enables Microsoft's competitors to do more, and 
to produce software that is compatible with Microsoft's. This will 
foster competition in the IT industry, and the economy will benefit 
as a result.
    I support this settlement. Now the economy can regain its former 
level of success, and we can put this costly litigation behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Sunil Chatterjee



MTC-00029938

1-28-02
Tried to email--mo luck used address
microsfot.atr @ usdoj.gov.
fax.
RE: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Dept of Justice
    We believe the settlement between Microsoft and the movement is 
fair for both sides. At this time to put this to behind us and move 
forward for the good and all, especially economy
    Sincerely.



MTC-00029939

Ken Graham
7531 Aberdon Road
Dallas, TX 75252
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am highly opposed to excessive government intervention in the 
business world. It is no surprise, then, that I am opposed to the 
antitrust lawsuit that was brought against Microsoft three years 
ago. Now that a settlement has been reached in this case, I hope you 
will support it, as well, and allow Microsoft to put this episode 
behind them.
    Microsoft has offered many compromises as part of this 
settlement. The company has agreed not to have any contractual 
restrictions with companies it deals with regarding the sale of non-
Microsoft products. Microsoft has also agreed to build all future 
operating systems in such a manner that non-

[[Page 28781]]

Microsoft products can easily be promoted on them.
    Despite the fairness of the settlement and the compromises made 
by Microsoft, some opponents want this case brought back to court. I 
believe it is your duty to make sure they do not succeed.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Graham



MTC-00029940

DBM Associates
Computer Systems & Services
One Salem Square,
Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Justice Dept.
950 Penna. Avenue
Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am glad that the litigation in this matter with Microsoft has 
ended with a settlement. Settling in this case is better for all. 
There has been a noticeable uncertainty in the IT industry over the 
threat to break Microsoft up, and this settlement at least will end 
this talk and help us all get back to business.
    Progress in the IT industry, and the strength of this country's 
IT infrastructure, depend upon both innovation and some semblance of 
standardization. The prevalence of Microsoft software has greatly 
aided the exchange of information both within and between 
organizations. This prolonged legal action is hurting this country 
by slowing progress to a crawl.
    I can appreciate that Microsoft's competitors are unhappy with 
this prevalence, but that's the way it has worked out. To them I 
say, there are plenty of other problems to be solved and they should 
put their resources into solving them instead of counter-productive 
efforts directed against Microsoft.
    For their part, the evidence indicates that Microsoft has 
engaged in unfair business practices and abused their monopoly 
position. I see that penalties and restrictions on their future 
behavior are part of the settlement. I hope that the settlement 
terms were negotiated in good faith by both parties to effectively 
address the issues.
    I am writing in support of the settlement of the Microsoft case, 
and the sooner the better. I am hopeful that with it, some 
uncertainty in the IT industry will be resolved, and we can all put 
this behind us.
    Sincerely,
    David Weston
    Vice President



MTC-00029941

FAX COVER LETTER
To: attorney ??
Fax No. 1-202-616-9937
From: ??
Fax No. 1-740-482-2126
Date: Jan. 28, 2002
Re: ??
Number of Pages 2
??
Comments:
See attached letter
Rodger and Carol Carpenter
140 T.H. 70
Bucyrus, OH 44820
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give our support to the antitrust settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This antitrust suit has 
gone on for far too long, crippling our economy and holding our 
country back from further innovation in the technology industry. 
Furthermore, I do not believe the government should have been 
brought into what is competition between technology companies. 
Microsoft became the dominant force in computer software, creating 
the first compatible software programs. Before Bill Gates nothing 
worked, nothing was compatible. Through hard work and creativity, 
Bill Gates met the needs of consumers. The company became successful 
because of tiffs, and unfortunately, created a lot of jealousy with 
other rims, who were unable to compete. This was the real cause 
behind the antitrust suit against Microsoft.
    The case has been settled. Even the federal judge wanted to see 
an end to it, ordering round-the-clock dialogue. Microsoft has 
agreed to a uniform price list, and to design future versions of 
Windows with a way to make it easier for computer makers to promote 
non-Microsoft software such as different startup screens; Microsoft 
has also agreed to help companies reach a greater degree of 
reliability with regard to then competing networking software. The 
company has gone the extra mile to end this case and satisfy the 
demands of the Department of Justice. We think we should honor that 
decision.
    We urge you to give your support to this agreement and not give 
in to the pettiness of those whose only concern seems to be the 
destruction of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Rodger Carpenter and Carol Carpenter



MTC-00029942

Scott B. Glynn
3205 Poppleton Ave. # 2
Omaha, NE 68105
402-932-6535
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing with regards to the pending settlement between the 
Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation.
    In my opinion, the finding of fact in the case of the federal 
government versus Microsoft, overlooked the most important point: 
whether or not there has been harm to consumers. We hear conflicting 
reports--(a) that the company's dominance in the market has 
resulted in higher prices and (b) that their dominance has produced 
a trend of prices dropping lower than cost for consumers.
    How do consumers feel? In even the most recent public opinion 
polls, most consumers express their approval of Microsoft and the 
company's products. The reality of it is that the high-tech industry 
develops and changes so rapidly that since the trial began the face 
of the industry has changed, Linux has made great strides in the 
market with their operating system and several software companies 
have closed the gap between themselves and Microsoft.
    I am sure that most consumers would be in favor of ending the 
lawsuit against Microsoft. The proposed settlement would end the 
suit and that is exactly what consumers are looking for. I urge the 
Judge to approve the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Scott B. Glynn



MTC-00029943

Planning Enterprises
David A. Kulle
P.O Box 8019
Jupiter, FL 33468-8019
(800) 447-3660
(561) 335-3077
Fax (561) 335-0009
Robert C. Kulle
P.O. Box 601481
?? 75360-1481
(714) 361-5707
?? (214) ??-3110
fax (214) 378-??
January 26, 2002
    Attorney General
    John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have been a firm supporter of Microsoft for many years and my 
philosophy as far as this settlement goes is that I will support 
anything that is in Microsoft's best interest. As far as the 
settlement reached in the antitrust case, I am willing to express 
support for it in the interest of closure. I feel this entire 
lawsuit was unwarranted and a complete contradiction to the spirit 
of free enterprise. Bringing closure to this as soon as possible 
will be in the best interest of consumers, the economy, and the IT 
industry on a whole.
    It is very hard for me to imagine why there are still States 
that wish to pursue this matter when one considers the severity of 
our economic situation. What exactly is the issue? Microsoft has 
made several concessions in this settlement that will doubtless have 
adverse effects on their own competitiveness. For example, Microsoft 
has agreed not to obligate third parties to distribute or promote 
Windows technology exclusively or at a fixed percentage. Also, 
Microsoft will make no attempt to obligate software developer to 
only create Windows-compatible software. I am very pleased with the 
Microsoft's obvious compliance and hope that you will aggressively 
pursue means that will pacify the concerns of the dissatisfied 
states and bring this matter to close immediately.
    Sincerely,
    Cynthia Kulle



MTC-00029944

TIM GOLBA
13G24 S. S?? STREET

[[Page 28782]]

??. KS 66062
January 23, 2002
MS. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 "D" Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Our country is experiencing a recession like we have not seen in 
decades. Many factors have contributed to our shaken economy, but 
the onset of the Microsoft antitrust case really bit into the 
NASDAO, shaking confidence of investors and consumers. It is 
important to remember that for the first time in history, more than 
half of American citizens are invested in the stock markets. I am 
pleased to see the significant steps President George W. Bush has 
taken to offset the panic of the American consumer in the form of 
tax rebates and tax cuts. We are fortunate to have such a proactive 
in office.
    Information regarding the lawsuit is readily available through 
every imaginable media source, and I couldn't help but notice 
that tech stocks parked up a little with news of the ?? settlement. 
I appeal to your sense of good ?? and ask you to endorse the 
settlement. I fear that further litigation and regulation will 
further damage our economy and morale. Rest assured that an end to 
this lawsuit would result in a collective sigh of relief from the 
entire nation.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Golba



MTC-00029945

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street N W, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I live and work in a Midwestern state that is constantly 
battling to keep our citizens here to work and raise their families. 
One of the most important incentives we have to offer is a growing 
technology industry, which we affectionately refer to as 
"Silicorn Valley."
    I've watched with much interest the progress of the Justice 
Department's suit against Microsoft. I understand the issues 
involved, but more importantly, I've felt the impact of the lawsuit 
on my own pocketbook. As a young investor, I have a portion of my 
retirement savings invested in the technology sector and have 
watched my returns deflate along with the sinking economy and can't 
help but assume that this lawsuit has some bearing on my poor 
returns.
    Common sense tells me tells me that the quicker we can ?? this 
issue ?? the better off all Americans will be, particularly those 
Americans whose livelihood is directly dependent on the technology 
industry and those whose retirement savings could use a shot in the 
arm.
    Please give your utmost consideration to the settlement before 
you. An approval of the settlement will go far in jump-starting the 
economy and actting America back on the road to prosperity.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Severino
    Office of the Speaker
    ?? House of ??
    State Capital
    Des Moines, IA 50319



MTC-00029946

34-20 l2th Street
Long Island City, NY 11106
January 22. 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement. The settlement that was reached in November is 
fair and reasonable, and I am extremely anxious to see this 
settlement finalized. This three-year-long litigation against 
Microsoft has been expensive and a waste of resources.
    Microsoft has agreed to all terms and conditions of this 
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows" operating system products. Microsoft has also agreed 
not to 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. This settlement will create more 
opportunities for other companies and make "it easier for 
these companies to compete against Microsoft. Please support this 
settlement so this company can remain together and continue 
benefiting our society, with inventive software that makes our lives 
easier. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Stefanos Evangelinos



MTC-00029947

January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The pending settlement between Microsoft and the federal 
government presents an opportunity to bring this case to a close. 
This suit has distracted Microsoft and the nation from more pressing 
priorities for too long, and this settlement will allow us to get 
back to business.
    The settlement will, in effect, force Microsoft to treat its 
competitors in a more sympathetic way. For example, Microsoft has 
agreed to avoid retaliation against any computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in Windows. This alone will 
increase competition among software developers. Additionally, 
Microsoft has agreed to share its code for the Windows operating 
system that will enable its competitors to configure software that 
is fully compatible with Windows. Most vexing, however, is the 
provision that places Microsoft under the oversight of a government 
mandated technical review committee. As the president of a business, 
I can say that I would not relish the idea of my company being 
watched by the government at all times.
    This lawsuit has drained resources on both sides for more than 
three years. The settlement can stop the resource drain, and at the 
same time make the IT sector more competitive. I support it 
wholeheartedly, and believe that it is in the best interest of the 
nation. Thank you for your time and efforts in Washington.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Conway
    President



MTC-00029948

Renata Hesse
Department of Justice, Antitrust Department
601 D St NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing as a Kansas State Representative and Vice Chairman 
of the House Business, Commerce, and Labor Committee. As settlement 
in the Microsoft suit hangs in the balance, I write with genuine 
concern for the future of our industry.
    The Microsoft Antitrust suit was brought to fruition due to 
antiquated rules and regulations written during the development of 
the railroads, Microsoft's harm to the consumer has yet to be 
proven; point in fact, there is a discrepancy in claims that 
Microsoft: has undercut the competition by under pricing, yet there 
are contradicting claims that Microsoft has overcharged the 
consumer.
    Microsoft is primarily guilty of supplying a terrific product 
for a huge niche market. A market they actually helped to grow due 
to high demand for the technology they pioneered. The prosecution of 
Microsoft for giving the consumer what they ask for is absurd. Like 
an>, business, Microsoft has tried to protect the details of 
their products from competitors and tried to maintain their market 
share.
    The real meat of this lawsuit lies in the antitrust laws 
themselves. Microsoft's competitors have merged and aligned in a 
full attack in hopes of gaining Microsoft's market share through 
court orders rather than through the free market system. It's as if 
these laws are allowing the competition to monopolize Microsoft with 
protection of the courts.
    In the time since the lawsuit was introduced, the software and 
tech industries have ?? into a living, breathing organism, changing 
daily with each new advance. Paid far by leggy long for State 
Representative, Rayburn, Treasure. PO Box 546--Madison, KS 
66860-0546 (620) 
437-283--peglong @ ink.org
    There are no linear changes here. Each new advance seems to 
drive the consumer toward a different direction. This reality holds 
no marker share security for Microsoft. In your consideration of the 
settlement of this suit, please be thoughtful as to the root of the 
problem, outdated antitrust law. Prompt settlement will appease the 
competition, but more importantly let industry move on without such 
slowing scrutiny.

[[Page 28783]]

    Cordially,
    Representative Peggy Long



MTC-00029949 LARRY McKIBBEN

9STATE SENATOR
Thirty-second District
Statehouse (515) 281-3171
e mail Larry mekibben @ legis.state.la.us
HOME: ADDRIESS
P.O. Box 618
Marshulltown, lowa 501.58
The Senate
State of lowa
Seventy-ninth General Assembly
STATEHOUSE
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Appropriations
Business & labor Relations
local Government
Ways and means, Chair
Transportation, ?? &
Capitals Appropriations ??
January 28,2002
Judge Kollar Kotelly
c/o Ms. Renata Hesse LI.S, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Your Honor,
    The new economy has been the source of an economic and 
technological renaissance in America and Microsoft has been a part 
of that from the beginning. At the dawn of the Information Age, 
there is no denying the importance of the technology industry to 
America's prosperity in the 21st century.
    As an elected official, I need to ensure an environment that 
allows the technology industry's entrepreneurial freedom to innovate 
and reinvigorate our economy. We need a return of the self-
regulating competition that has built this industry into the most 
vibrant and successful in the world. The U.S. economy stands to grow 
by leaps and bounds in coming years, all due to the innovation, 
competition, and customer-focused attitude of our high tech 
community.
    This case opened a Pandora's box of litigation and regulation 
that is already stifling competition, cramping innovation, and 
haring consumers and investors. Microsoft's presence in the market 
increased competition and innovation driving down costs for 
consumers, Microsoft helped set a high standard in the market and 
raised the bar for competitors many of whom have stepped up to the 
plate and become viable competitors to Microsoft.
    Considering a snapshot of the high-tech industry when this case 
started compared to one from today, it is a much different picture 
Aside from the fact that the industry has outgrown this case, the 
proposed Final Judgment would decidedly help our economy and 
hopefully close the lid on the Pandora's box it opened. I urge you 
to approve the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Mekibben



MTC-00029950

Bonnie Wood
116 Timber Springs Lane
Exton, PA 19341
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 1-202-307-1454
Page 1 of 1
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to give my support to the Microsoft and 
Department of Justice settlement. Microsoft is one of our greatest 
companies and I resent the government interference in what is 
basically competition between technology companies. I doubt whether 
Microsoft has done anything that the other firms have not. More 
likely, the other firms could not compete and have gone crying to 
the government. They just want a bigger piece of the pie.
    You don't have to look any further than AT&T to see the 
havoc that can result from breaking up certain so-called monopolies. 
AT&T was deemed a monopoly while we had the best service in the 
world. Now, no one can understand the half-dozen phone bills 
received each month from strange sounding phone companies. Phone 
companies come and go with alarming frequency, and those that stay 
in business seem to be merging all back together. I often wonder if 
I would have been better off if AT&T had been left alone.
    The same may be true for Microsoft. In any event, Microsoft and 
the Justice Department have reached an agreement. Microsoft has 
agreed to open the company up to third party, innovation; has agreed 
to disclose internal source codes for Windows; and agreed to an 
oversight committee. This is more than fair.
    I urge you to give your approval to this agreement.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Wood
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    202-228-0604



MTC-00029951

THE HENRY HAZLITT FOUNDATION
Free-Market.Net: The Freedom Network
40t N. Franklin St., Sulte 3E
Chicago, IL 60610
(312) 494-9440
fax (312) 494-9441
e-mall: info @ hazlltt.org
http://www.free.market, net
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Dan Curran
Robert Davis
Marsha ??
Louis James
Robert Knautz
Art Margulis, Jr.
David Padden
Frank Resnlk
Alvan Rosenberg
Mark Schultz
Chris Wh??tten
BOARD OF ADVISORS
Scott Banister
Godspeed Networks
David Boaz
Cato Institute
Lloyd Buchanan
Axe-Houghton Associates, Inc.
Sky Dayton
EarthLink Networks. Inc.
Paul R. Farago
Constructive Management Foundation
Bill Frezza
Internet Week
John H, Fund
The Wall Street Journal
BettIn?? Blen Greaves
Foundation for Economic Education Dr, David Kelley
The Objectivist Center
Dr. Henri L??page
Idees Action
Virginia Postral
Reason magazine
Andrea Millen Rich
Laissez Faire Books
Dr. Jeremy Shearmur
Australian National UniverSity
Dr. Thomas Szasz
SUNY Health Science Center
Dr. Walter E. Williams
George Mason University
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
601 D St NW, Ste 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The settlement before the court in the Microsoft antitrust case 
is not ideal. The premise for this case was unwarranted to begin 
with. The antitrust laws being applied are subjective and left to 
regulators to interpret--in this case not even for the benefit 
of consumers. All things considered, I still write you today to 
encourage Judge Kolar Kottely to support the proposal.
    The settlement gives the government most of what they wanted, 
stopping short of breaking up the company. Among other measures, the 
company is required to disclose significant proprietary information 
to its competitors. This is a significant and meaningful punishment. 
To enforce the terms of the settlement, Microsoft engineers will 
have to put up with a team of three on-site, full-time monitors. The 
monitors will have access to all of the company's records and 
personnel, and Microsoft will even have to pick up the tab for their 
offices and up-keep. Again, this is a significant and meaningful 
punishment that provides ample ground for the state to make the case 
to the public that justice has been served.
    The end of the conflict between Microsoft and the federal 
government will restore a much-needed measure of "certainty in 
the marketplace," as the Justice Department itself has 
claimed. Consumers and business partners will no longer have to fear 
the dismemberment of a major player in the software industry. I, as 
a Microsoft customer, won't have to worry about dealing with more 
vendors to get the same goods and services. People will be able to 
make plans for the future with a somewhat reinforced sense of 
confidence.
    But real certainty in today's marketplace requires a knowledge 
of what's legal and what's illegal. While the Microsoft settlement 
seems to put a high-profile conflict to rest, it doesn't deal with 
the larger problems that sparked that battle. As long as legislation 
that means whatever bureaucrats say remains on the books, conflict 
will continue between frustrated businesses and arbitrary 
regulators.

[[Page 28784]]

    So, I urge you to take this needed step toward bringing this 
chapter to an end. And I encourage the Department of Justice to work 
with the legislative branch to carefully re-examine and restructure, 
or, preferably, repeal the Sherman Antitrust Law.
    Thank You,
    Louis James
    President



MTC-00029952

January 28, 2002
Attorney, General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am the controller of a diamond wholesale company writing to 
give my support to the recent Department of Justice and Microsoft 
antitrust case. This settlement was reached after three months of 
intense, round-the-clock negotiations endorsed by a federal judge. 
Ongoing persecution of one of the strongest companies m our country 
is unfair, and stands in stark relief to how much positive 
difference Bill Gates has made in the computer industry.
    When I first started using computers, interoperability was 
virtually nonexistent, and computers were not user-friendly at all. 
Now, with Windows, I can install everything myself. I am not a 
computer expert by any means, but bemuse of Microsoft's simple 
programs, I have been able to customize my computer to my 
specifications.
    The envious competitors who foisted this lawsuit on America now 
claim that the settlement is not strict enough. Any objective view 
of the settlement, however, shows that Microsoft is more than fairly 
reprimanded. Microsoft has agreed to change Windows so that it will 
be even easier to install programs, and Microsoft has agreed to 
share any interfaces that Windows uses to communicate with other 
programs. This alone is more than enough, and should placate even 
the shrillest of the competition.
    I urge you to continue your support to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Irene Chin
    Controller
FULLCUT
M?? Inc.
MAK?? BIRN??ACH)
CHAIRHAN
?? FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK. N.Y. 10017
(212) 681-00??0
January 28, 21302
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft;
    I am writing on this last day of the comment period to express 
my full support of the recent settlement in the antitrust case 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The lawsuit 
dragged on too long and now it is definitely in the best interests 
of the American public to end litigation against Microsoft.
    I am a Microsoft supporter. I do not think my rights as a 
consumer have been infringed upon. In fact, 1 think that Microsoft 
has standardized the industry and made it mush easier for users. The 
terms of the settlement are fair. Microsoft has agreed to increase 
its relations with computer makers and software developers, design 
future Windows" versions so that competitors can more easily 
promote their own products and form a three person team to monitor 
compliance with the settlement.
    I hope your office implements the settlement as soon as 
possible. Our nation needs Microsoft as the cornerstone of the tech 
sector. Please suppress the opposition from the nine states and make 
this thing a reality.
    Sincerely
    Max Birnbach
    President



MTC-00029953

Mrs. Victoria Jenson
32710 WEST ??IST TERRACE
DESOTO, KS 66018
January 19, 2002
Ms, Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Anti-trust
601 "D" Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I appreciate the chance to comment under the Tunney Act on the 
settlement that has been proposed to end the Department of Justice's 
anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
    I am in favor of settlement of the suit. I believe the suit 
should be brought to an end. as soon as possible. In my opinion, the 
case should not have been brought in die fiat place. The fact that 
nine states and the Department of Justice trove found common ground 
with Microsoft to settle the case is a very positive development for 
the entire nation,
    It seems to me that the laws governing anti-trust suits are not 
designed to -keep up with a constantly changing industry like high 
technology. That said, the proposed settlement does reach a solid 
middle ground that cakes measures to ensure competition without 
over-reaching the role of government regulators.
    The settlement is a fair and reasonable way to end this suit. I 
urge the judge to approve it.
    Sincerely,
    Victoria Jenson



MTC-00029954

165 E 32nd Street
Apt. 2B
New York, NY 1 0016-6054
January 17, 2002
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft
950 Penn. Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regards to the antitrust settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am in favor of 
bringing the litigation process to an end immediately, and I support 
the current settlement. The antitrust suit with Microsoft has been 
going for three years now, and with a settlement proposed is the 
time to put this issue to bed once and for all.
    Under the terms set forth in the current settlement, Microsoft 
has agreed to make several major changes in the way it operates and 
interacts with other companies, consumers, and in particular with 
its competitors. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
products out to the 20 largest computer manufacturers on identical 
terms and conditions, Additionally Microsoft will no longer enter 
into any agreements with third parties to exclusively distribute or 
promote Windows family products, unless there are no competitive 
concerns present in the particular situation.
    While I feel that many of the aspects of the settlement are too 
restrictive on Microsoft I am still in favor of the settlement as a 
whole. Now more then ever we need companies such as Microsoft, 
leaders in the industry, who are financially able to weather our 
current economic storm. At a time when the economy is dwindling and 
layoffs are prominent we should not be penalizing successful 
companies. For these reasons I urge you to support the antitrust 
settlement and take no further action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jorge Godoy



MTC-00029955

AMERICA
GENERAL
FINANCIAL GROUP
MOORE FINANCIAL GROUP
    Please deliver the following documents to the person or 
department listed below as quickly as possible. Thank Your
NAME: Renata Hesse
COMPANY: 1/28/01
DATE:(202) 616-9937
PHONE NO.:
FAX NO.:
COMMENTS:
PERSON SENDING THIS FAX: Bill
    Should there be any difficulty reading this document or if all 
pages have not been received,
please call (337) 261-1006 for assistance.
William E. "Bill" Moore
Registered Representative
P.O. Box 92802
Lafayette, LA 70509
(337) 261-1006
Fax: (337) 236-5566
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S.v. Microsoft
    I share the government's concern about consumer harm in the fast 
growing technology industry. However, I am aware that the settlement 
agreement provides resources, access, and authority to respond to 
complaints about Microsoft's compliance.
    I am aware that the negotiators have worked out a settlement 
that may not satisfy, anyone, but includes something for everyone. 
Usually that is the sign of a fair settlement.
    Therefore I believe that it is time to settle this case. As our 
economy begins to try to rebound, finality in this case would be a 
great boost. I appreciate your consideration of this important 
matter.

[[Page 28785]]

    Sincerely,



MTC-00029956

Anne G. Pullin, President
AAA, FRICS, GG
2887 Wright Avenue
Winter Park, FL 32789
Personal Property Appraisals & Consultations Fine & 
Decorative
Arts--Antiques
January 28,2000
Attorney General John Ash??? Sales--Art Market Research
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC20530
Phone: (407) 644-2156 
jimannep @ worldnet.att.net
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am concerned about the states and now AOL currently seeking 
litigation and more litigation against Microsoft They all seem to be 
operating only on a basis of greed and without a firm foundation for 
claims. Or else, they are suffering from sour grapes because they 
have not been able to bring to the market a product that was as good 
or as easily usable by people like me. I have used Microsoft 
products since Word Version One came out. In fact I bought my first 
computer because research indicated that it would be the best and 
easiest product to use. Time tins proved me correct.
    Microsoft has helped me in so many ways to improve my business: 
I can exchange information without telephone calls and long retyping 
of material. Everything is less expensive to operate and 
buy--from computers to all the software.
    I tried Netscape -what a pain it was to use. And AOL is the only 
E-mail service that I have not been able to exchange images with 
Microsoft walked away with the business because they had better 
products and were good about customer service. They have always been 
able to get me operating--and I am a complete novice to the 
technical end of this business. I cannot say this for many other 
software products.
    As an example of their products: I took my old DOS with the 
Multiplan spreadsheet to Europe. Used the old DOS computer because 
the battery had 6 hours, and I was working in an ancient library. 
Recorded my data. Brought the data home into Excel and then into 
Access. It all worked like a charm.
    Sincerely,
    Anne Pullin
    CC: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00029957

True Blue--Freedom
January 26, 2002
Board of Adojsors
Hon.john A. ??
R??? 8ty ???istrict Ohio
Hon John Kastoh, For??? Chai???
Congressional ???dget ???
???hn S. Dowlin, Co???ssion???
Han??? Couny
Wayne ??? Prestent
Data Rank Cerp
Gregg Schole Ventech
Ranata B, Hesse
Fax 202-616-9937
    Dear Renata:
    While I am pleased that the Tunney Act allows me to make an 
input on behalf of True Blue'8 membership across America In regard 
to the proposed Microsoft settlement, I want to be candid. The 
federal government's pursuit of Microsoft damaged consumers and the 
economy, as follows:
    . Consumers paid more than $30 million in taxes to sue a company 
that has consistently created and marketed better products at a 
lower cost.
    . Investors lost millions more as the tech sector of the stock 
market sagged under the Impact of the threat to break up Microsoft, 
adding Impetus to a recession.
    . Taxpayers, whose Interests are the key priority of lawmakers, 
paid lawmakers and attorneys" salaries to work on behalf of 
the competitors of Microsoft. (Personally, I'm not sure I'll ever 
want to buy products from companies that whine to the Papa Fools to 
secure taxpayer funding of their marketplace fights.)
    Asking Microsoft to hire a staff and provide offices for a 
bureaucracy to enforce the settlement is simply using a socialist 
mechanism to control an Industry. At best, such an office should 
exist no longer than 12-18 months, and then be completely 
terminated, If Congress determines a need for such an agency, we can 
place the idea before Congress, debate the law, and vote. The Court 
must not become a bureaucracy-creating and bureaucracy-enforcing 
entity.
    Every State Attorney General who continues in this suit clearly 
morphs his/her office into collection arm grabbing for taxpayer 
dollars. It is disturbing that the Attorneys General, who are funded 
by taxpayers at the state level, are grasping for families" 
earnings at the federal level, too We urge you to end this matter 
and allow Microsoft to return to what it does best: Innovating to 
serve consumers. Consumers will see that Microsoft offers 
flexibility and demonstrates its resolve to become an ever better 
industry leader.
    Yours truly,
    Patricla R. Cooksey, President



MTC-00029958

Attention: Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street. NW, Suite I200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    I often encourage my students to speak up when they have, an 
opinion on a current event. I decided recently to heed my own advice 
and speak up on the proposed proposed Microsoft settlement during 
this open comment period.
    As a teacher in a small rural school. I am encouraged by the 
possibility that Microsoft has offered to donate millions of dollars 
of computer equipment to schools like the one where I teach. Many 
times, rural schools have a hard timer keeping up with technological 
advances and opportunities available at larger, more urban schools. 
I believe the settlement proposed by the Bush administration would 
go a long wary toward leveling the playing field for students who 
attend rural schools by allowing them access to cutting edge 
computer technology. Thank you for your work on this important case. 
I urge you to approve the settlement
    Sincerely
    Connie Morris



MTC-00029959

Jim Waldo
1202 April Lane
Green Bay, WI 54304-4106
(920) 494-4628 (Voice & Automatic Fax, if our fax does not 
recognize yours, dial # 11 during ringing
Cell Phone: (920) 362-3623
EMAIL: JIMWALDO2 @ CS.COM
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to say that I fully support the Microsoft 
settlement. I feel that if Microsoft is going to comply with all the 
terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, then the Justice 
department should conclude their investigations in this matter. The 
country needs to go on with it business of production and 
development in regards to the tech industry.
    One way in which Microsoft has agreed to comply in regards to 
the settlement, is the three expert technical committee, which was 
formed to make sure that Microsoft will not step out of the bounds 
of the agreement. If another group finds Microsoft acting 
inappropriately, that group can take up a formal grievance with a 
number of individuals appointed by the government and who are 
associated with this case.
    I know that you will make the right decision for all Americans. 
End this case now, and let the country keep moving.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Waldo
    cc: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00029960

TO: John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
202616-9937
FROM: Calvin A. Jordan
3800 Meredith Drive
Greensboro. NC 27408
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
Washington. DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For a long time I have followed the antitrust, suit being 
brought on Microsoft by the Justice Department. After more than 
three years of litigation, a settlement has finally been reached. 
The purpose of this letter is to show my support for this 
settlement. This case has simply gone on far too long.
    Unfortunately, some powerful opponents of Microsoft would like 
to see this settlement, revoked, and are pressuring the Justice 
Department to withdraw this offer. They believe that the settlement 
does not go far enough. This is where I distinctly disagree. Under 
the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will allow easy access to its 
operating systems for competing software firms. Also under the terms 
of the settlement. Microsoft will be monitored full-time by the 
government, and can still face lawsuits from competing companies.

[[Page 28786]]

    The government at the State and Federal levels must fully 
support, the settlement for it t come to fruition. After three years 
and millions of dollars, isolated opponents should not be allowed to 
spoil the work of the DOJ to settle this case. I stand behind the 
settlement 100%, and appreciate this outlet to have my opinion 
count.
    Sincerely
    Calvin A. Jordan
    cc: Representative Howard Coble



MTC-00029962

Post-it Fax Note 7671 Date ??? 2
To ZEN???A HESSE From ZOB??? HAUS
Co./Dept. Dos Go.
Phone # Phonb #
Fax #202 616 9937 Fax #
Robert J. Haus
5501 Harwood Drive
Des Moines, IA 50312
(515) 277-3098 (horne)
(515) 490-0538 (office)
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms, Hesse,
    I am writing to take advantage of the opportunity to weigh in on 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement decision by the U.S. District 
Court. Thank you for this opportunity. Microsoft has been a leader 
in the technology industry with its software, operating system, and 
Internet browser. They are accused of being a monopoly, yet the 
companies fueling the case are identified as Microsoft's 
"competitors"--seems like a contradiction.
    Linux operating system (OS) is growing at an astounding pace 
taking a larger share of the market every day. It's able to capture 
more of the market because consumers are choosing the Linux OS over 
Windows. The customer is deciding which product best suits their 
needs--not the government.
    Bill Gates took Microsoft to unforeseen levels with unmatched 
speed. His vision and business savvy made the company "king of 
the hill"... for now. However, the high-tech industry grows at 
such rapid rates that no company will be "king of the 
hill"... for long.
    In the meantime, Microsoft's position in the market has not 
caused harm to the consumer. On a professional and personal level I 
appreciate the ease with which Windows works and my children would 
agree...it is simply the most user friendly software on the market 
today. Whether or not Microsoft is the best system for me is, and 
should remain, my own decision.
    The settlement that the parties in this suit have come to is 
reasonable and delivers the government much of what it sought 
including a way to enforce the requirements set forth in the 
agreement. I respectfully request that you support the settlement in 
this ease.
    Thank You,
    Robert Haus



MTC-00029963

Kellene Walker
Route 4
??. KS 66736
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DO 20530
    Attorney Hesse,
    I find it interesting that Apple is objecting to Microsoft's 
settlement offer, perhaps due to Microsoft's offer of cash, 
software, and computer equipment to schools in need, I think Apple 
pioneered the idea of discounting computers to schools and teachers 
in the 1980's, possibly in a smart strategy of gaining youth loyalty 
and influencing future sales, No matter, fair is fair. When Bill 
Gates and company were working out era garage, they had no more 
opportunity than any other person or company. Microsoft was 
literally built from nothing to an empire due to hard work, 
innovation, and by recognizing an untapped market.
    Microsoft's biggest edge is that they pioneered the industry, 
and to date, they do it better than anyone else. Their business 
model is studied internationally. Of course Microsoft is a fierce 
competitor, there are no laws against that.
    The bottom line is that freedom to innovate is there for 
everyone. This lawsuit borders on hindering that freedom. I strongly 
encourage you to approve the current settlement offer in a move to 
protect free commerce.
    Sincerely,
    Kellene Walker, RN



MTC-00029964

FORRESTST H. MUIRE, JR.
908 PRINCETON
MIDLAND, TEXAS 79701-4159
915-682-5097
email, ??uire. @ swbell.net FAX 685-4091
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please accept the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case. As a long-time user of Microsoft products, I see this 
agreement as the most practical solution for competitors to thrive, 
short of a break up that would risk consumers losing a quality, 
stable presence in the software industry.
    Seemingly inspired by a lack of monetary support from the last 
administration, this government intervention into the business world 
has been off base from the start. With this deal, Microsoft's market 
position is clearly weakened, so any further litigation would be an 
even more misguided attempt to manipulate the marketplace on behalf 
of the "consumer." Microsoft will allow computer 
manufacturers broad freedoms to configure Windows with the software 
of their choice without preference in future licensing deals and 
will provide competitors with extensive access to its internal code, 
among other agreed measures to expand competition. Considering the 
constant verification by a committee of experts to monitor the deal, 
I ask for you to support for this overly fair settlement. The IT 
industry and the economy will greatly benefit from the return of 
stability to the software marketplace. Thank you very much for your 
support.
    Sincerely,
    Forrest Muire



MTC-00029965

SEAN GALVIN
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile 202-616-9957
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for Microsoft case's 
settlement with the federal government. Considering the poor state 
of the economy, the last thing consumers need prolonged litigation 
resulting in additional oppression of the high tech industry.
    Consumers, on the whole, were harmed by the case far more than 
they were ever harmed by the conduct described by it. It's been a 
long time since the high tech industry was truly free to compete and 
innovate without fear of repercussions from the government, but now 
that that time has come again. I believe we will see great results 
in short order that could turn this economy around.
    Sincerely,
    Sean Galvin



MTC-00029966

Eric Movassaghi
1765 Coliseum St. #314
New Orleans, LA 70130
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S.v. Microsoft
    As the owner of a private business I know how fierce competition 
can be out in the open market. And I do appreciate the government's 
role in protecting consumers against monopolistic activities. 
However, this case has gone on long enough and I am hopeful that the 
proposed settlement will be approved.
    It is important to my business that our economy begin to turn 
around and I think the technology sector is important to the 
rebound. A final settlement in this case will provide that boost and 
protect consumers at the same time. I am hopeful that the settlement 
is approved soon.
    Thank you for your consideration of my views.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00029967

Inwoodola
Jan 28, 2002
Attn U.S. Department of Justice.
Regarding the lawsuit Against Microsoft
    I think it is time to settle this and get it behind us so we can 
proceed with more important things such as economy and terrorists. I 
feel this Company is being punished for being successful and that 
most libly have not done anything more out of their time than those 
that are bringing

[[Page 28787]]

charges against them. Lets get on with it and say it is done!
    Sincerely,
    Mark Hanson



MTC-00029968

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Transmission Date: 2/28/02 
Total Pages: 2(Including cover page
FROM: Attorney James R. Graves
TO FAX NO: (202) 307-1454
TO THE ATTENTION OF: Renata B. Hesse
 Antitrust Division
RE: Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a Microsoft supporter, I would like to point out some reasons 
why the antitrust case should be closed at the federal level. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable, and has been extensive enough for 
nine states to approve. I fear that the states pursuing further 
litigation will never be satisified. Under the terms of the 
agreement, Microsoft will make significant changes in the way it 
develops and licenses its software. The corporation has agreed to 
more or less open its inventions to the competition, allowing them 
to use the success of Windows to launch their own competing 
products. For instance, Microsoft has granted broad new rights to 
software engineers and computer makers to configure Windows so that 
competing programs can be promoted on Windows itself.
    Although these concessions make antitrust precedent, Microsoft 
has been willing to change in an effort to bring this case to a 
close. As long as the industry leader is giving away market share, 
there will always be those that want more. I hope you will pay 
attention to the merits of this case.
    If so, you will see fit to end this matter.
    Very truly yours,
    James R. Graves Attorney-at-Law



MTC-00029969

2 High Stepper Court, Apt, 406
Pikesville, MD 21208
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to ask that you give your support to the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice I am a 
retired electrical engineer. I know computers, and I know Microsoft. 
I believe Microsoft was all right; in no way did it monopolize the 
market. Bill Gates" main strength was that he was simply 
quicker and smarter than the other fellows. Bill Gates recognized 
the need for standardized software programs and filled it. Then he 
marketed it brilliantly. There are any number of firms out there in 
other industries whose product is not necessarily better, it's just 
that they are smarter in promoting it and changing to fulfill public 
need. MBAs are taught this very lesson Bill Gates was hauled into 
court out of jealousy, not any unfair business practices.
    I also understand from the settlement, Microsoft will be opening 
up its source codes for the Windows operating system. This is a lot 
more than other firms would do Microsoft has also agreed to a 
technical committee that will oversee Microsoft's compliance. 
Microsoft has more than paid for any sins it may have committed. I 
urge you, for the good of the county, for business, for the general 
public, to give your support to this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bernard Gerber



MTC-00029970

WILCO VETERINARY CLINIC
RR 4. BOX 188. FREDONIA. KS 66736
January 14, 2002
Judge Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
601 "D" Street Northwest, #1200
Washington, DC 20880
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The purpose of this letter is to add my comments to the record 
regarding the anti-trust lawsuit filed against Microsoft.
    As a veterinarian and businessman, I believe in as little 
interference as possible in the operations of a private company. 
Though I see the value of having anti-trust statutes in place to 
protect the public from, anti-competitive practices. I also believe 
that in this case, those statutes have not been properly applied.
    While it is true that Microsoft is a large company and has 
earned a great share of the computer and software marker, I believe 
that has happened because Microsoft offers great products at 
reasonable prices. I do not believe it has been demonstrated that 
Microsoft has been engaging in anti-competitive practices that would 
warrant an anti-trust lawsuit of this type. I further believe that 
to continue pursuing this lawsuit will only sap state and federal 
resources that are already in short supply and cause unnecessary 
damage to a company that has contributed a great deal to the 
American economy and way of life.
    I urge you to affirm the settlement proposed by the Bush 
Administration and agreed to by many state Attorneys General.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Charles Fox



MTC-00029971

2800 Blue Spruce Lane
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a long, difficult three years, the Department of Justice 
has settled its antitrust suit against Microsoft. Microsoft did not 
get off easy. The firm went far beyond what was originally mentioned 
in the antitrust case. Microsoft has substantially opened up the 
company to competitors of Microsoft. Something I do not think any 
other firm would have done. But it is time to move on. It should be 
over. We cannot keep dragging the case on. Congress is arguing about 
a stimulus package, but keeps one of our major companies tied down 
with litigation. I support the settlement, and look forward to the 
boost ending this case will give our economy. Thank you for your 
time and consideration,
    Sincerely.
    Eldridge Parks



MTC-00029972

East 1751 Riverview Drive
Postfalls, Idaho 83854
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pert??is Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust law was designed to Protect consumers from abuse 
by a company. Not to monitor competition between businesses, which 
is what happened with the antitrust case brought against Microsoft 
by the Department of Justice. A settlement has been reached and I am 
writing to ask that you give your rapport to this agreement. The 
original antitrust suit against Microsoft was badly misinterpreted. 
Microsoft has not harmed consumers; on the contrary, Bill Gates has 
helped consumers enormously in understanding the technological 
revolution that has descended upon us. He has made software easier 
to understand, easier to imegrate, and much more affordable. What he 
has not done is pay court to the powers that be in Washington, or 
appeased his competitors by not being too successful. Hence, we have 
our antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. However, the case is over, 
and it is time to move on.
    Microsoft has met the demands by the Department of Justice by 
agreeing to configure its Windows program to allow competing 
software to be inserted; Microsoft his agreed to help companies 
achieve a greater degree of reliability with their networking 
software, and Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond 
the products and procedures ?? in the original lawsuit. Whatever 
"sins" Microsoft may have committed, they have more than 
paid for. I urge you to give your support to this agreement. It is 
time to get back on track. We have been through some rough times and 
now need to concentrate on getting our ??my going again.
    Microsoft can help us to this, if we allow it. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James Rocca
    cc: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00029973

Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
FAX 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Please settle the Microsoft case with the current findings.
    We feel the prosecution of Microsoft has been and is detrimental 
to the entire economy. The public has been penalized by actions of 
the federal government in this unreasonable prosecution by the 
government,

[[Page 28788]]

Microsoft competitors, various states where the competitors reside 
and a prejudice judge. We feel Microsoft has a better product and 
should not be prosecuted for making the best successful economy in 
history and its prosecution led to the recession. It appears the 
other giants, i.e. Exxon and Mobile, merging banks, merging lumber 
companies, etc., manage to merge and be monopolistic to the 
detriment of the regular citizen causing increased prices and the 
federal government does not interfere.
    While Microsoft gets punished for going it alone (without 
political aid) and the other giants lobby Congress, we (everyday 
citizens) have to pay the higher prices. Please settle this matter 
with the current decisions and do not carry it out any longer. 
Forcing Microsoft to help their competitors is unAmerican.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Brennan
    Betty Brennan
    FAX 206-878-1681
    January 28, 2001



MTC-00029974

January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dement of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have taken this opportunity to write and express my opinion of 
the settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that we need to concentrate on issues of greater 
importance. I am pleased that a settlement has finally been reached 
in this case and that Microsoft will be able to continue doing 
business as a whole entity.
    It is apparent to me that the people pursuing this litigation on 
are not looking for a good judgment in this case but rather the 
perpetuation of their own personal agendas. When government becomes 
involved in business, socialism becomes the rule of the day. I feel 
that this case has been fueled by jealousy and that until we reach a 
conclusion to this litigation free enterprise is stymied. The terms 
of the settlement are fair: Microsoft has agreed to design all 
future versions of Windows to be compatible with the products of its 
competitors, and they will also cease any behavior that may be 
considered retaliatory.
    Please support this settlement. I trust that you will do all 
that is within your power to protect American businesses.
    Sincerely,
    Vanessa I. Castagliola, Leonard D. Castagliola Jr.



MTC-00029975

January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am tired of the Justice Department using my tax dollars to 
fund litigation against Microsoft. No other company has provided the 
amazing tools that have helped businesses around the globe to 
produce their work faster and better.
    The litigation was shaped and formed in the Clinton 
administration under the guidance of Microsoft's competitors. Had 
they put as much passion and energy into developing products that 
were worth using, they would not be in this fight.
    Please, let's put the American machine to work protecting our 
people from terrorists inside and outside of America. Let the free 
market economy decide who has the better product. At the end of the 
day, it really doesn't matter what is loaded onto a computer. I can 
strip it down and build it back with whatever programs I so desire. 
To date, the competitive products have not been worth the effort.
    I am a business owner who has a product that is so great; my 
clients won't go elsewhere ever again. Does that make me a monopoly 
too? By the way, I intend to make a profit this year. Is it cause 
for litigation by the Justice Department?
    Sincerely Yours,
    Laurie J. Mitchell, Director
    EventForce, Inc.
    1323 102nd Avenue NE
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    (425) 635-7696



MTC-00029976

J C BOATRZGIIT
1395 N Falkenburg Road
Tampa. FL 33619
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 you today in support of the settlement that was 
reached in the Microsoft antitrust dispute. I believe that this case 
needs to come to a close, and indeed, never should have been brought 
in the first place.
    The settlement is reasonable, under its terms Microsoft will 
disclose information about the internal interface of its Windows 
operating system, this will enable its competitors to create new 
products that will work within the system. Microsoft will also 
design all future versions of Windows to be compatible with the 
products of other companies. Finally Microsoft will not engage in 
predatory business tactics, or exact revenge against any of its 
competitors. The company will be monitored the by a government 
appointed technical committee which will ensure that Microsoft 
complies with the terms of this settlement.
    Microsoft is one of this nations greatest corporate assets. 
Attacking this company will not benefit the U.S. economy, the IT 
industry, or the American consumer. Thank you for doing all that is 
within your power to see this settlement pass. Thank you for your 
consideration of my position.
    Sincerely,
    J.C. Boatright



MTC-00029977

January 18, 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,
    The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case can help our 
nation's struggling economy begin to improve.
    Employers are challenged by the downswing in the economy. Many 
workers are seeking employment after being laid off. NASDAQ and 
technology stocks have been directly affected by the Microsoft 
lawsuit since the spring of 2000. It is imperative to draw closure 
to this litigation. I see that this is important to improve our 
economy and to encourage consumers. I urge you to agree with the 
settlement of the proposed Final Judgment antitrust case against 
Microsoft Corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Jack & Mary Woelfel
    4346 $E Maryland
    Topeka, KS 66609



MTC-00029978

EQUITRRC
THE TRACKING COMPANY
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S, Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Your decision to settle the Justice Department's lawsuit against 
Microsoft offers every party involved in the matter the best of both 
worlds; Microsoft will cease its alleged unfair business practices 
to the immense benefit of its competitors while at the same be 
allowed to stay in tact as a company.
    Microsoft certainly was penalized with more than a rap on the 
corporate knuckles. The settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. Important to note is 
Microsoft's agreeing to terms that extend well beyond the products 
and procedures that were actually part of the suit; it demonstrates 
how much Microsoft is committed to settle this lawsuit. Even though 
they may not realize k right now, Microsoft's biggest adversaries 
will benefit from the terms of the settlement. First of all, 
Microsoft has agreed to share its patented code for its Windows 
operating system with competitors. Second, Microsoft has agreed not 
to retaliate against computer makers who ship software that competes 
with anything in its Windows operating system. These two measures 
will significantly increase competition.
    I hope the settlement process is quickly concluded and that the 
settlement is implemented as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Gid Yousefi
    836 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33134, (305)
    442-2060, Fax (305) 442-0687



MTC-00029979

1449 Chelmsford Street NW
North Canton, OH 44720
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC
20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:

[[Page 28789]]

    Three years ago, Microsoft was brought to trial in the federal 
courts. Up until six months ago, absolutely no progress was made it 
was just a waste of time and money. Now, a settlement has been 
proposed and is currently awaiting approval. Microsoft's opponents 
believe that the settlement lets Microsoft off too lightly and that 
Microsoft holds a dangerous monopoly over the consumer. They are 
wrong. Microsoft did not get off lightly in the settlement, they do 
not hold a dangerous monopoly, and the only thing that is harming 
the consumer is the litigation itself. The economy has been crippled 
over the past several years, arid this is due in large part to the 
antitrust case, the amount of money that has been spent in 
litigation, and the panic of stockholders pulling out of their 
Microsoft shares. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the 
consumer to continue litigation against Microsoft. It can only do 
more damage to the economy and the technology industry.
    The settlement needs no further deliberation or modification. 
Microsoft has been more than generous to its competitors, agreeing 
to terms that cover aspects of Microsoft technology and procedures 
that were not found to be in violation of antitrust laws. The 
settlement requires Microsoft to refrain from retaliation should 
software be introduced into the market that directly competes with 
Microsoft technology. Microsoft has also agreed to license the 
Windows operating system to twenty of the largest computer makers on 
identical terms and conditions, including price.
    I can find no reason for litigation to be continued against 
Microsoft. As I see it, only more harm can come to the public if 
this drags on for much longer. I ask you to support the settlement 
as it now stands.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Miller



MTC-00029980

Senator W.Tom Sawyer, Jr.
3 State House Statum
Augasta, ME 04333-0003
(207) 287-1505
S?? Valley Ave.
Ranger, ME 04401
TEL (207) 942-1771
FAX (107) 943-3073
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division--department of Justice
801 D Street NWW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing in regards to the proposed settlement negationed 
with Microsoft. As the former owner and CEO of a Maine Company that 
employed over 250 people and relied on negotiations with state and 
local governments for much of my business, I can appreciate first 
hard the complexity of dealing with issues that effect the public 
good. In fact that was a significant factor in why I chose to run 
for both local and state offices in my home town. I also have been 
involved in litigation and know the enormous drain it is on a 
business, and even its employees, many of whom are also 
stockholders, both financially and emotionally. That is why I feel 
it is in the best internet of the public and the government to 
accept the proposed settlement negotiated with Microsoft and move 
on. Having need a considerable amount surrounding the proposal, I 
feel it to be a beneficial arrangement for the general public in 
several ways.
    It provides for the introduction of technology resources into 
the education system that will be functional and integrated. It 
offers the potential for widespread benefit because it includes 
money for teacher training and support as well as sorely needed 
hardware and software. These have proven to be more critical to the 
successful integration of technology than the latest version of 
computers and associated programs.
    I also like the matching greats aspect of the proposed 
foundation. I have always felt in dealing with various nonprofit 
groups and charities with which I have been involved, that some 
contribution on the part of the recipient provided for appreciation 
of the items or services received. It just makes sense to me.
    Fax (201) 287-1527 * TTY (207) 287-1858 * Message 
Service 1-800-423-6900 * Web Site: http://
www.state.me.sul/legis/s??sts E-MAIL: 
S?? @ aol.com



MTC-00029981

Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq.
January 17, 2002
Page Two
    To return for a moment to the matter of litigation, I am of the 
opinion that a civil case of prominence benefits our society in that 
it causes both parties to become more sensitive and responsive to 
issues that resulted in the suit to begin with. However, there comes 
a time where the need to resolve the case becomes crucial as it 
starts to drain productive resources from both parties. Our 
government's case has reached such a stage. Timing is always of the 
essence for all parties.
    The legal actions to date have forced Microsoft, and many other 
large corporations, to rethink and modify their business practices 
if they have half a brain, which can only benefit the general 
public. Microsoft's willingness to reach a settlement of this 
magnitude demonstrates a responsive attitude and finally it brings 
to a productive conclusion a very expensive and burdensome lawsuit 
which has had adverse effects on the company's value and 
productivity during the period of the lawsuit and this too has an 
adverse effect on many citizens as well. As we have seen in the 
Enron debacle, stockholders are real people too.
    At a time when the economy and our nation are in recovery, I 
feel settlement of this case to be in the general public's best 
Interest and urge the Attorney General to convey this message to all 
parties involved.
    Thank you for consideration of my comments.
    Enthusiastically,



MTC-00029982

HEADQUARTERS
6033 W. Century Blvd.
Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(310) 410-9981
Fax: (310) 410-9982
POLICY CENTER
126 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 479-2873
Fax: (202) 479-2876
www.urbancure.org
January 24, 2002
Ms. 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 am writing to urge acceptance of the proposed Final Judgment 
offered by the U.S. Department of Justice and endorsed by nine state 
attorneys general to resolve the antitrust case against Microsoft 
Corporation.
    I am president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education 
(CURE), a 5-year-old independent nonprofit organization based in Los 
Angeles. CURE produces research and commentary on a wide range of 
public policy issues impacting America's inner cities and the poor. 
CURE promotes faith-based and free-market solutions on issues of 
race and poverty. CURE works with policy leaders, inner city 
pastors, entrepreneurs, college students and ex-welfare recipients 
to create an environment for self-government and free-enterprise.
    This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more 
than $35 million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, 
final approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of 
greatest benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice 
(DO]) and the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be 
able to focus their time and resources on matters of far greater 
national significance--the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a

[[Page 28790]]

Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors" products after purchase as well. The Judgment 
even covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability, 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Star Parker
    President



MTC-00029983

FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Ms. Renata Hesse
FROM: Rep. Jeff Plale
COMPANY: Department of Justice
DATE: 01/28/2002
FAX NUMBER: (202)616-9937
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING GOVER:2
PHONE NUMBER:
SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER
RE: U.S. v. Microsoft
YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
NOTES/COMMENTS:
    Please call with any questians.
    Thanks,
    Rep. Jeff Plale (608) 266-0610
    Jeff Plale
    State Representative
    21st Assembly District
    OFFICE
    State Capitol
    P.O. Box 8953
    Madlson, WI 53708-8953
    (608) 266-0610
    1-888-534-0021
    Fax:
    (608) 282-3621
    E-Mall:
    Rep.Plale @ legis.state.wl.us
    HOME
    1404 Eighteenth Avenue
    South?? 435
    (414) 764-5292
    Fax:
    5404 18?? Avenue
    (414) 571-0035
    Printed on recycled paper
    January 28, 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 11200
    Washington DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to encourage your swift approval of the settlement 
of the U.S. v. Microsoft case. As you are aware, Microsoft has been 
a worldwide leader in groundbreaking technology. This has been a 
tremendous benefit to consumers. Prompt settlement of this case is 
in the best interest of the state of Wisconsin, and my constituents 
in the 21st Assembly District. Microsoft's leading technology is of 
great advantage to our school children and the future of America. By 
file Department of Justice settling this case, Microsoft could again 
assist less fortunate school districts with much needed help in 
technology. To date, over $30 million dollars in taxpayer dollars 
has been needlessly spent on this case. It is time for the 
Department of Justice to move forward and approve the settlement of 
the U.S. v. Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Plale
    State Representative
    21st Assembly District



MTC-00029984

JOSEPH TARTAGLIA
88 FARRELL DRIVE
WATERBURY, CT 06706
Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Via Facsimile 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    This letter is to articulate my support for the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. The fact that over $30 million in 
taxpayer dollars has been spent in this case during these trying 
economic times is proof enough that this case has gone on far too 
long. Hopefully, the settlement will signal a return to innovation 
without the threat of government intervention. The Department of 
Justice has done a commendable job in putting together an agreement 
that is fair but won't put Microsoft out of business. It is a 
reasonable conclusion to this case and I support it wholeheartedly.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Tartaglia



MTC-00029985

ASSOCIATED BROKERS
OF SUN VALLEY, LLC
Real Estate
January 28, 2002
Mike Sampson
P.O. Box 2004
Sun Valley, ID 83353
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft and believe this whole 
antitrust case has become political. I don't see how this benefits 
consumers and businesses--especially at the expense of the 
economy. The tech stocks are down. The technology sector is down. 
The employment numbers are down. Let Microsoft get back to work and 
the government get on with worthwhile business. The only people I 
see benefiting from this case are the lawyers.
    I am a small businessman who employs 25 people. I have greatly 
benefited since 1982 from the products Microsoft produces and feel 
they have been more than fair to me. If their competitors can't put 
out a better product with competitive pricing and service that's 
their problem. I don't see why I should suffer as a small 
businessman. After years of extensive negotiations and mediation, 
Microsoft has gone out of their way to settle this case. They went 
well beyond what would be required in any antitrust case. They 
agreed to design future versions of Windows, starting with an 
interim release of XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easier for 
computer companies, consumers and software developers to promote 
their software within Windows.
    Let's end this litigation so that we can focus on what's really 
important. Thanks,
    Sincerely,
    Mike Sampson
    cc: Senator Larry Craig
    P.O. Box 186, Sun Valley, Idaho 83353
    Sun Valley Road & Main Street,
    Ketchum, Idaho
    208-226-5300 . Fax 208-726-4311



MTC-00029986

2724 Gladstone Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6431
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N-W
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a citizen of a state party to the pending Microsoft 
settlement, I would like to offer my support to the Justice 
Department approving the current deal and ending further legal 
action in this case. The seemingly envious reaction of the 
government to Microsoft's growing power and dominance in the 
technology industry, led to a lawsuit, then a misguided judgment, 
that far over-reached the right of government to manipulate the 
marketplace. This agreement seems like a reasonable compromise and 
should be approved, or risk alienating the public and hurting the 
economy. Based on the terms of the settlement, it would seem that 
Microsoft has made great strides to offer competitors more 
opportunities to succeed. They have agreed to not retaliate against 
computer makers who ship competitive software, offering broader 
fights to promote non-Microsoft programs within Windows and 
providing the top 20 manufacturers a uniform price structure to back 
up that promise. Starting with Microsoft XP, they will begin to 
provide a mechanism to make it easy to add access to competitive 
software, such as those from AOL or Real Networks, or even remove 
features within Windows. These steps seem like a major opportunity 
for competitors to show they can thrive in the Windows environment.
    I ask for your approval of this very fair settlement, as both 
sides have proven able to compromise through negotiation with a 
court-appointed mediator and that work should be upheld. I 
appreciate your time and look forward to an intelligent decision.

[[Page 28791]]

    Sincerely,
    Vernon Kempfert



MTC-00029987

THE REGION'S CHAMBER
PRINCE WILLIAM REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
4320 Ridgewood Center Drive,
Prince William, Virginia 22192 ??
Tel. 703-590-5000 ??
703-590-9815
email: pwrcc @ RegionalChamber.org ?? Internet: 
www.RegionalChamber.org
FAX COVER SHEET
To
DATE
BUSINESS FAX #
FROM
PAGES (??)
MESSAGE
PRINCE WILLIAM REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
VISION
To be the leading organization for businesses in the Prince William 
Region.
MISSION
    To promote and improve the business climate through initiatives 
that stimulate economic growth, effect legislative change and 
enhance the region's quality of life.
CHAMBER PARTNERS 2002
GOLD
POTOMAC NEWS ** POTOMAC HOSPITAL
WASHINGTON GAS
SILVER
DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER
BRONZE
MDA TECHNOLOGIES ** NOVEC
COMPTON & DULING, LC
THE WATERS GROUP, INC.
FORT BELVOIR FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Jan 3rd, 8:00 am Legislative Kick-off Breakfast, Manassas
Jan 10th, 5:30 pm BAH at the Hampton Inn Woodbridge
Jan 16th, 11:30 am Membership Meeting Luncheon at Montclair Country 
Club
 Topic: State of the County
Sponsor: Washington Gas
Jan 18th, 12 pm Lunch Bunch at Burger King, River Oaks
Jan 22nd, 9:00 am New Member Orientation at River Run Senior 
Apartments
Jan 24th, 8:00 am Business Before Hours at the Chinn Center
Jan 26th, 6:30 pm Chairman's Dinner & the Silver Salute at 
Montclair Country Club
    Happy New Year !
JOIN THE REGION'S CHAMBER NOW--DON'T MISS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY!
Call (703) 590-5000 for Reservations/Directions/Information
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20630
RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce is writing this 
letter to express its support for the settlement reached by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, nine state attorneys general and Microsoft in 
the long-running antitrust lawsuit initiated by the federal 
government. The Region's Chamber is critically aware of how 
important it is to our national economy that all businesses be able 
to "get back to business." There were many knowledgeable 
people guided by an internationally recognized mediator to reach the 
Microsoft settlement. We believe that additional litigation, 
following on the heels of many years of costly legal proceedings and 
on the subsequent work of those in mediation would serve only to 
prolong the negative impact on our economy of the Microsoft 
litigation.
    Therefore, the Prince William Regional Chamber of Commerce, an 
organization of more than 800 businesses in the Prince William area, 
respectfully encourages the U.S. Department of Justice to urge the 
Courts to adopt the agreement with all due speed so that business 
and our national--and even international--economy can move 
forward again with certainty.
    Sincerely,
    Carol A. Kalbfleisch Laurie C. Wieder
    Chairman of the Board President



MTC-00029988

MARLANE R. TAYLOR
4600 Laurel Ave.,
Grants Pass, OR 97527
541.471.4126
uscchirp @ terragon.com
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 205301-0001
Re: Comments on Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has been well over three years that I have watched the 
litigation debacle among the Department of Justice, states and other 
lawsuits against Microsoft. I have been dismayed that Judge Thomas 
Penfield Jackson's decision was allowed to stand in the first place, 
when it was obvious that he was biased before the trial ended and 
his ruling ought to have been tossed out in its entirety. That the 
litigation continues to date without settlement is egregious.
    I am indignant that millions of our tax dollars have been wasted 
in pursuit of Microsoft, a tax-paying corporation that employs over 
40,000 workers worldwide. In the past twenty-five years, it has been 
known for its software advances and innovation. It has established 
industry standards where there were none, advanced computer science, 
and single handedly has been the catalyst of the technological boom. 
They are only guilty of "being very successful" in what 
they do.
    The DOJ's lawsuit has and continues to financially injure 
retirees, mutual funds, PERS state retirement funds, individual 
investors, and anyone who has invested in Microsoft. "How in 
good conscious can the department justify this?" So far, the 
DOJ has done more to disrupt business, injure the public, damage the 
economy and technology sector, and financial markets combined than 
what you claim Microsoft has done to the consumer.
    Finally, it appeared there would be a settlement with Microsoft 
offering to undergo close scrutiny and willing to spend a billion 
dollars on computer science, hardware and software, teacher training 
and on-going assistance in the most needy schools. It is an 
innovative idea and adequate settlement offer, all of which is 
geared to help our youth become computer literate, as the business 
world will demand and expect of them for entry-level positions.
    However, Judge Motz denied the offer, since he believes it gives 
Microsoft an unfair advantage and allows them to expand their market 
share into the school system. The judge fails to recognize that he 
alone is denying impoverished school districts, and the children 
therein, access to a computer education they will need in order to 
compete for jobs in the real world. He would rather have children 
computer-illiterate, because Microsoft might just benefit in some 
way. What's wrong with this picture?
    His ruling is notably without justification, denying Microsoft's 
good faith offer to settle. Even in a perfect world, the judge's 
decision would still be wrong, very wrong. This litigation is a 
perfect example of an imperfect legal system. The ease has gone on 
far beyond anyone's imagination, and has become a virtual nightmare. 
The DOJ has seemingly painted itself into a corner, looking very 
inept. From my viewpoint, it seems the entire justice system needs a 
complete overhaul, because of its anti-business bias, and 
predilection against what constitutes normal and free competition in 
the business world. Judges need to be knowledgeable in the law, of 
course, but they also need to understand business, economics, 
capitalism, and who succeeds in business and why. Innovation is not 
a dirty word. Until now, our country has led the world in creativity 
and innovation thanks to Microsoft. Take a good look at all the 
companies that have stood on the shoulders of Microsoft and have 
ably competed in the marketplace for the last twenty-five years. The 
list is huge.
    That Microsoft is willing to follow the provisions set forth, it 
should satisfy every one. It is past time to end this debacle. The 
states that are holding out simply want to pan for gold in 
Microsoft's deep pockets. There isn't one rational reason not to 
grant Microsoft's substantial offer of settlement, because, it IS in 
the public's interest.
    The litigation has already cost millions of tax dollars for 
nothing. Moreover, the DOJ is directly responsible for the untold 
millions that it has cost Microsoft for its legal defense and 
representation--not to mention the financial fallout affecting 
millions of investors.
    Enough of this: Settle the case.
    Sincerely,
    Marlane R. Taylor



MTC-00029989

1001 NW 63rd Street Suite 280
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
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 support the implementation of the recent 
settlement between the U.S.

[[Page 28792]]

Department of Justice and Microsoft. There is no sense in continuing 
litigation against a company that is the only bright in our sorry 
economy. I do not think the lawsuit should have begun in the first 
place. Microsoft has made a good offer and the nine states opposing 
the settlement should accept it. Microsoft is giving away 
technological secrets, granting broad new rights to computer makers 
to configure Windows so as to make it easier for non-Microsoft 
products to be promoted, and a three-person team will monitor 
compliance with settlement.
    I urge your office to finalize the settlement and to make sure 
that further unnecessary lawsuits against Microsoft do not occur. 
Thank you. My losses in the stock market during the past year have 
been in excess or $2,000.000 and Microsoft is the only bright spot I 
have left in my technology portfolio. I urge you to get this lawsuit 
settled and allow Microsoft to work on behalf of the stockholders 
and America.
    Sincerely,
    George Platt
    CC: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00029990

From the Desk of Rick Bagley
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I wanted to write to Judge Kollar-Kotelly to encourage her to 
approve of the settlement that has been reached between Microsoft, 
nine of the attorneys general and the Department of Justice in 
Washington. If you have a consensus like this with so many 
interested parties, it is hard to see what is standing in the way of 
approval of this settlement.
    As a member of the school board in Forsyth County and a former 
employee of one of the largest law firms in the Southeastern United 
States, I am more than aware of what happens when the government 
gets involved in lawsuits. The effects of a lawsuit on any company, 
school or just an individual is chilling enough. But in this case, 
the effect of forward movement in the Microsoft lawsuit was 
devastating to millions of investors throughout America who were 
heavily invested into Microsoft stock. During this period and while 
many high-tech firms were losing ground, Microsoft continued to be 
strong and show good earnings. Yet, by facing a court trial and 
possible break up, Microsoft stock suffered a great deal as did 
investors as, at that time, Microsoft was the No. 1 held stock in 
pension and mutual funds. The reason that I would like to see a 
quick settlement in this case is to get the matter out of the courts 
so that Microsoft and the other parties can get back to business.
    Thanks for your consideration of my views
    Sincerely,
    Rick Bagley
    1195 Whispering Pines Dr.,
    Kernersville, NC 27284



MTC-00029992

11234 NE 87th St.
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 28, 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 entire case was 
uncalled for from the beginning. Now that there is a settlement that 
is fair I would like to see the government accept it and move on.
    Many people think that Microsoft is getting off easy, this is 
simply not true. Microsoft has given up much to reach the 
settlement. Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers the 
flexibility to install and promote any software that they see fit. 
Microsoft has also agreed to not enter into any agreement with any 
computer maker that would require them to use Microsoft software in 
any set percentage. Microsoft has also agreed to license Microsoft 
software at a set price no matter what kind of software the computer 
maker installs or promotes.
    Microsoft has agreed to much in order to put the issue behind 
them. The government needs to accept the settlement and allow 
Microsoft to move forward. The only way to move forward is to put 
the issue in the past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Jerome



MTC-00029993

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
Serving the Central Valley Business Community from Stockton to 
Bakersfield Since 1984
Fax
To: RENATA HESSE
From: ANTONIO GASTELUM
ANTITRUST DIVISION
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA HISPANIC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Fax: 202-616-9937
Pages: 2
Phone:
Date:   JANUARY 28, 2002
Re: DOJ v. Microsoft Settlement
CC: BECKY DARLING
� COVER PAGE PLUS 1
ADDITIONAL PAGES FOLLOWING
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
801 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
January 26, 2002
    Dear Me. Hesse,
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act in anti-trust cases, we are writing 
to strongly urge you to support the settlement reached by the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. It is time to put this issue to 
rest, Nearly four years and 35 million dollars is enough!
    Microsoft is a true American business success story and doesn't 
deserve to be penalized for it. Fair business guidelines are 
sometimes necessary, and have been already incorporated into the 
settlement agreement. Let Microsoft get back to the business of 
creating new and useful computer software. Every part of the economy 
feels the affects of this issue. As we are in the middle of a hard-
hitting recession, it is time to do what is necessary to get the 
nation back on its financial feet.
    Again we strongly urge you to support the settlement reached by 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Antonio Gastelum
    Executive Director
    Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce



MTC-00029994

FAX COVER PAGE
FROM THE OFFICE OF
ASSEMBLYMAN JOSEPH D. MORELLE
132ND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
716 Legislative Office Building
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12248
(518) 455-5373 FAX (518) 455-5647
TO:
FAX #:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PAGES: INCLUDING COVER PAGE
REPRESENTING BRIGHTON AND IRONDEQUOIT AND THE EAST SIDE OF 
ROCHESTER.
JOSEPH D. MORELLE
Assemblyman 132nd District
Monroe County
THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK
ALBANY
CHAIRMAN
Committee on Tourism,
Arts and Sports Development
CHAIRMAN
Subcommittee on Manufacturing
COMMITTEES
Economic Development, Job Creation,
Commerce & Industry
Higher Education
Local Governments
Libraries & Education
Technology
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The United State government negotiated a meaningful settlement 
with Microsoft that is in our nation's best interest. The settlement 
places sanctions on Microsoft without destroying the company. These 
sanctions will foster greater competition in the software industry 
and give consumers greater choice when they purchase and enhance 
their computers. This settlement will also help define the direction 
of government's role in the high-tech industry. This is a just, not 
punitive, resolution that will help the economy and promote new 
investment in

[[Page 28793]]

technology. I am encouraged by the actions of the Department of 
Justice and support you in your efforts to settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph D. Morelle
    MEMBER OF ASSEMBLY



MTC-00029995

Tom A. Schatz, President
Citizens Against Government Waste
13Ol Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
I am in gavor oh this mio TM. Herrick
Ms. T. M. Herrick
1500 Terrace Ave, Apt. 112
Liberal, KS 67901-5702
    Dear Ms. Herrick,
    Your response to this letter today will not only put a stop to 
$35 million in government waste, it may also be the single best way 
you can help stimulate America's economy and protect this nation's 
and your own financial future. I need to ask you today to send an 
urgent message to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that you 
support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit,
    Under a federal antitrust law called the Tunney Act, there is a 
60-day period for public comment before the U.S. District Court 
decides whether to accept the settlement. This period will expire on 
January 28th.
    By sending your message to DOJ, you can help put an end to the 
government's long-running legal assault on Microsoft, which has cost 
taxpayers more than $35 million and undermined one of the primary 
engines of America's economic growth. Let me tell you what's going 
on and why it's urgent that you send DOJ a message right away that 
you support the Microsoft settlement.
    On Noyember 6, 2001, Microsoft reached, a proposed settlement 
with DOJ and nine states in the antitrust lawsuit against the 
company. The terms of the settlement, briefly, are as follows: 
Computer manufacturers would be free to include non-Microsoft 
software in their products. Microsoft would alter its products, 
including the new Windows XP, to make it easier for consumers to 
substitute non-Microsoft programs in the Windows operating system. 
Microsoft would be required to share its programming code with 
competitors so their software for video streaming, digital 
photography and other features would be compatible with Windows. In 
addition, a three-member Technical Committee would be established, 
at Microsoft's expense, to monitor the company's behavior and 
enforce the settlement for the next five years. Should the company 
be found in violation of the terms of the settlement, it can be 
extended for another two years.
    The proposed settlement is a win-win for all concerned. It's 
fair to:
    � Microsoft, which will continue to be able to 
provide new software that integrates new products;
    � competitors, who will have more access to the 
Windows platform to incorporate their products or make them 
compatible;
    � software manufacturers, who will get back to the 
business of creating innovative products;
    � Consumers, who will have more choices among 
software products; and,
    � investors, who will have stability in the 
marketplace.
    Opponents of the settlement--primarily Microsoft's well-
heeled competitors who lobbied DOJ and the states to bring this 
lawsuit on the backs of taxpayers in the first place--have 
launched a massive campaign to prevent the court from accepting the 
agreement. They want nothing less than the dismantling of Microsoft, 
and they want taxpayers to continue to pay to secure a competitive 
advantage they couldn't win in the marketplace. That's why I 
urgently need you to send a strong message to DO! today that you 
support the Microsoft settlement.
    By visiting CAGW's website at www.cagw.org, you can e-mail a 
letter to DOJ, telling the government that you support the 
settlement. DOJ has specifically stated that they would prefer to 
receive comments electronically, so that's why I'm talcing the 
extraordinary step of asking you to visit our website today and send 
an e-mail to DOJ. All you need to do is go to CAGW's homepage at 
www.cagw.org, click onto the "Approve the Microsoft 
Settlement" link on the top fight-hand side of the page, and 
follow the instructions to e-mail your letter. It will just take a 
few minutes of your time.
    If, however, you prefer to fax your comments in support of the 
settlement to DOJ, you may fax them to the attention of Ms, Renata 
B. Hesse at (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937. The most 
important point is that you tell DOJ you support the Microsoft 
settlement and that you do it right away before the comment filing 
period ends on January 28th. To date, the Microsoft lawsuit has cost 
taxpayers more than $35 million. As the District Court Judge 
presiding over the case has said, "In light of the recent 
tragic events affecting our nafion...the benefit which will 
be" derived from a quick resolution of these cases [is] 
increasingly significant." Please tell DOJ to approve the 
settlement today. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Schatz
    President, CAGW
    P.S. Help put an end to $35 million in government waste. Tell 
DOJ that as a taxpayer and consumer you support the Microsoft 
settlement, and please get your message off to them today.
    Time is nmning out.



MTC-00029996

Jesse L Clay
1205 Ridgecrest Drive SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take some time to express to you my feelings 
about the proposed settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice. It is about time that the antitrust suit 
ended, and I feel that the terms in the settlement, although harsh 
on Microsoft, will be for the betterment of the computer industry 
and the economy.
    I am pleased with the prospect of the case being resolved, but I 
think it was initiated for all of the wrong reasons. Microsoft's 
competitors had a major role in initiating the litigation, because 
they could not bring to the market a product that matched 
Microsoft's own. The competition should be happy though. The terms 
of the settlement require Microsoft to turn over to their 
competitors source code and design data that are crucial to the 
internal makeup of Windows. Enough is enough. This settlement needs 
m he approved so the industry can get back on its feet, and with 
competitors working more closely with one another, the industry will 
benefit. I feel the proposed settlement will benefit all parties 
involved, including Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Clay



MTC-00029997

Carol Morse Sibley
92 Overlook Terrace
Bloomfield, NJ 07003-29t7
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft have gone on for too 
long. They are also not very well justified. Microsoft has not only 
created jobs and wealth for our country, but also has made 
technological breakthroughs that have revolutionized the IT sector. 
I do wish that when they come out with new versions of software they 
would always make it compatible with previous versions, which they 
didn't do, for instance, with PowerPoint.
    Still, it's clear that the settlement seems to only help 
competitors gain an edge they were not able to gain beforehand. It 
forced Microsoft to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products, and also grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft software can be 
promoted more easily.
    It is in the best interests of the American public to finalize 
the settlement. Our nation cannot afford further litigation so I 
urge your office to use its influence to try to rein in the nine 
states that want to drag this case out for even longer. Thank you 
for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Morse Sibley



MTC-00029998

1-23-02
Mi. Renata B. ??
?? (202) 307-1454 02 (202) 616-9937 (FAX)
Ms. ??
    This Letter is intended to Conform that I am in favor of the ?? 
settlement between Microsoft and The U.S. Dept. of Justice.
    This is the ?? settlement of november 6,2001.
    Sincerely ??



MTC-00029999

4911 Bainbridge Court Southwest
Lilburn. GA 30047
January 24,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 28794]]

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The lawsuit that has reached a tentative agreement between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice was flawed from the 
start. The initial aim of settlement was to break up a perceived 
monopoly and stop Microsoft from infringing in consumer rights. 
First off, Microsoft does not fall under the terms of he definition 
for monopoly because it does not sell poor quality goods at inflated 
rates. Microsoft in fact has consistently delivered user-friendly 
products that far outdo their competitors. They have also not 
infringed on our rights, because all consumers made a conscious 
decision to purchase Microsoft. The terms of the settlement violate 
Microsoft's intellectual property rights as they force them to 
disclose for use by competitors interfaces that are internal to 
Windows" operating system products. I urge your office to take 
a firm stance against the nine states that want to continue 
litigation. Put an end to this dispute so that the cornerstone of 
the IT sector can continue to innovate as it has in the past. It is 
in the public's best interests to settle.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Knight



MTC-00030000

FRANK W. BROWN
REALTON
POST OFFICE B0X 215.
ORANGE PARK, FLORIDA 32067-0215
--TELEPHONE
904-264-0504
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    If the public spends time listening to Microsoft's opponents, we 
all would be under the impression that this industry icon was the 
bad guy in this entire case. These same opponents would like us to 
think that Microsoft got off easy in this settlement. The truth, 
however, is the very opposite. Since the company's inception, 
Microsoft has set the standard for innovation and quality. Their 
products are accessible, easy to use, arid affordable. They have 
been seen as the "bad guy" because they are being blamed 
for their competitor's inability to innovate and keep up with 
Microsoft's rapid changes. How fair is that?
    As far as Microsoft getting off easy in the case, this is simply 
not true, Microsoft has basically opened their operation doors to 
their competitors by allowing them access to Windows interfaces, 
protocols, and intellectual property. They have even agreed to 
create future versions of Windows within which non-Microsoft 
products may function. In addition to all these damaging 
concessions, Microsoft has also agreed to terms that were not even 
found unlawful. I hope that you will make every possible attempt to 
bring this matter to an early close.
    Sincerely,
    Frank W. Brown, Jr.



MTC-00030001

320 Tanglewood Trail
Wadsworth, OH 44281-2355
(330) 334-1097
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support for settling the antitrust 
suit against Microsoft. I do not feel that the case should ever have 
been taken as far as it was. It is time to move on to more pressing 
concerns.
    While I recognize Microsoft's market dominance, I also feel that 
they are operating legally, and as such no further action should be 
taken. With the economic downturn of the past year, ending the case 
and letting Microsoft generate further technologies is important. 
Competitors of Microsoft will gain a lot from the settlement, 
including disclosure by Microsoft of the internal interfaces of the 
Windows operating system Microsoft development with its own 
personnel and capital.
    The longer the government keeps Microsoft's hands tied, the more 
the economy will suffer. Please finalize the settlement agreement as 
soon as possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jenny Wallace



MTC-00030002

Janurn7 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust settlement agreement should be 
finalized. I am opposed to this lawsuit.
    We operate h a free enterprise system where competition is 
the driving force behind a prosperous economy. Lawsuits of this 
nature punish a company for being competitive. Despite my opposition 
to the lawsuit, I believe the terms of the settlement are 
reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to begin designing Windows with 
mechanisms to make it easier for consumers to add or remove features 
of Windows, and instead replace them with non-Microsoft software. 
They also agreed to not to enter into contracts that would obligate 
third parties to exclusively promote or distribute Windows products. 
With these types of concessions, consumers will have greater 
choices, and any so-called anticompetitive behavior wilt be 
curtailed.
    I am hopeful the Department of Justice will continue in its 
efforts to settle this case. Thank you.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030003

CarrierChoice
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Jusnce,
950 Pennsylvania, Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you this brief note to encourage you to help end 
the Microsoft antitrust case. This nearly four-year-old case has 
dramed Microsoft and the government of millions of dollars. It has 
been the subject of controversy and litigation to no one's 
discernable benefit. It has had a debilitating affect on Microsoft, 
the entire ?? industry and the national economy at a nine when we 
can least afford it. It is tune to resolve this matter.
    At present, the major parties and the majority of compl??ant 
states have reached a tentative settlement agreement. The agreement 
allows Microsoft to retain its present corporate structure in return 
for committing itself to a radical change in its marker philosophy 
and practices. Microsoft will now actively encourage 
"competition" by reconfiguring its Windows platforms to 
readily accept and even promote non Microsoft software. The company 
will now no longer requite exclusive Windows software be in 
agreements of computer manufacturers to whom they license their 
basic platforms. These and other concessions prove the sincerity of 
Microsoft's commitment to ameliorating its in intimidating marker 
dominance.
    Microsoft is a great, inventive and productive player in our 
economy and its own industry. We need Microsoft up and running full 
time. Please support this settlement
    Sincerely,
    Chick ??earberstone
    Director of Carner Relations
    CarrierChoice
    cc Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030004

THE CENTER FOR THE
MORAL DEFENSE
OF CAPITALISM
VIA FAX
January 28,2002
From: Nicholas Provenzo
Chairman
Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
To: Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 
U.S.C.  16, the Center for the Moral Defense of 
Capitalism respectfully submits its evaluation of the proposed Final 
Judgment resolving U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No. 
98-1232) and State of New York ex. ref Attorney General Eliot 
Spitzer, et al., v. Microsoft Corporation (Civil Action No. 
98-1233). The mission of the Center for the Moral Defense of 
Capitalism is to promote the social welfare of the nation by 
presenting to the public a moral foundation for individualism and 
economic freedom based on a philosophical analysis of humanity and 
human nature. Specifically, we seek to apply Ayn Rand's philosophy 
of Objectivism to the understanding of human action and human 
relationships.
    As the cornerstone of a free, capitalist system, we argue that 
human life requires thought and effort and that the free market 
springs from the trade of one's thoughts and efforts with others. We 
make the argument that human minds and bodies must be left free of 
coercion, that all human interaction must be voluntary and that the 
initiation of

[[Page 28795]]

physical force must be banished from human relationships. We see a 
proper government as the agent of its citizens, charged with one 
mission: the use of retaliatory physical force in defense against 
the initiation of physical force. Our organization has followed the 
Microsoft antitrust case from its initial filing--we have 
opposed the case from the outset, seeing it as an abridgement of the 
freedom of production and trade and an interference with the right 
to acquire and possess property. We disagree with the essential 
factual component of this case-that Microsoft's integration of its 
Internet Explorer Web browser with its Windows operating system was 
a coercive act against Microsoft's competitors and customers. 
Instead, we see a company that accordin9 it its evaluation of the 
marketplace saw the commercial value of product integration and 
acted accordingly. In exercise of Microsoft's right to control its 
property, the firm set terms for the sate of that property that it 
believed was in its own self-interest. Microsoft's subsequent 
commercial success after this integration affirms the wisdom of 
Microsoft's actions--Microsoft's customers themselves chose to 
reward the firm with increased sales and increased market share. 
Rather than serve an impediment to the free market, Microsoft's 
actions personified them.
    Yet, obviously, Microsoft's success has made it into the target 
of the government's wrath via the current antitrust case. Our 
organization closely followed the District Court case, writing 
several published evaluations of the case and its subsequent rulings 
(see Appendix t & 2). Our organization also participated in the 
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeals 
proceedings as an amicus curie. Our amicus brief relied on two major 
arguments in opposing the government's case: 1.) that the antitrust 
laws are unconstitutional laws that fail to provide with clear and 
concise guidance necessary to avoid sanctions under the law; and 2.) 
that the antitrust laws are unconstitutional laws because they 
require the government to initiate force against innocent citizens.
    Today, our view of the Microsoft antitrust case and its proposed 
settlement is as follows: While we respect the desire of the parties 
to seek a resolution to this case, particularly that of Microsoft, 
which has had to endure a 3\1/2\ year crusade against its property 
rights and its right to conduct its business in a profitable manner, 
we are wary of any settlement that legitimizes any aspect of this 
unjust assault against a successful, innovative business
    We consider the case against Microsoft to have been defective at 
every level, from the fundamental claim that the entrepreneurial 
actions of a successful business are a threat against others, to the 
claim that a monopoly can exist where there is no legal barrier to 
entering a market, to the claim that the citizens of the United 
States are too ignorant or incompetent to exercise their individual 
power of choice when in the marketplace and therefore require the 
government to make their personal choices for them. We consider it a 
failure that the court saw no distinction between the earned success 
of a business in the free market and the coercive power of a 
government favorite and we consider it a failure that the court did 
not ultimately throw out the case against Microsoft.
    Considering that this case was initial brought not at the 
insistence of individual consumers or with Microsoft's business 
partners, but at the insistence of Microsoft's unsuccessful 
competitors, this entire case reeks of business failures asking the 
government to step in and give them the commercial success they 
could not achieve in the marketplace. Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed.
    In evaluating the proposed settlement, we find that it 
specifically threatens the right to private property. A key 
component of the proposed remedy is a requirement that Microsoft 
make its source codes available to a government-sanctioned oversight 
committee, which in turn is supposed to ensure these same source 
codes are made available to non-Microsoft "middleware" 
producers, so that these companies can create products to compete 
with Microsoft. Since under the proposed judgment, the United States 
would retain the right to determine and enforce the scope to which 
these source codes are to be made available, the final judgment 
constitutes a de facto seizure of private property--the source 
codes--and its subsequent conversion to a public good. Such a 
taking is wholly incompatible with the Constitution of the United 
States.
    Accordingly, we reject the notion that this settlement serves 
the public interest, or that any punishment of Microsoft for its 
business practices will be of benefit to any consumer. Eroding 
Microsoft's property rights serves no one. We hold that no antitrust 
case, including the Microsoft case can withstand rational scrutiny, 
and we ask that no sanction be placed on Microsoft as a result of 
its antitrust conviction.
    Appendix 1:
    Judge Jackson's Findings of Fiction
    By Dr. Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D.
    Senior Policy Analyst
    The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism Judge Thomas 
Penfield Jackson has released his "findings of fact" in 
the Microsoft antitrust case. While his report did contain some 
correct information--such as the truism that a successful 
company tries to defeat its rivals--the central claims of his 
report are blatant falsehoods Let us examine five of these fictions
    Fiction #1: Microsoft is a "monopoly. "There is 
no such thing as a private monopoly. Only the government can 
forcibly prevent competitors from entering a market. Microsoft has 
attained dominance in the software industry, but dominance is not 
monopoly. Market dominance has to be earned through a long struggle, 
by providing better products and better prices than anyone else 
Dominant companies who falter (as did Xerox, IBM, General Motors and 
Kodak) will find their market share eroded, sometimes very quickly. 
There is no threat from these dominant players so long as their 
competitors are legally permitted to enter the field, invent new 
products, and combine with each other to gain the needed market 
power.
    In a free market, a dominant position can only be sustained by 
continually providing new products and services that are better than 
other firms" products. Paradoxically, Judge Jackson recognizes 
this fact but condemns it. Microsoft's innovation, its continual 
product upgrades, its millions spent on research and development, 
are cited by Jackson, not as evidence that Microsoft has earned its 
position, but only as evidence of a conspiracy to 
"stifle" its competitors.
    Fiction #2: Microsoft's "monopoly power" allows 
it to "coerce" its customers. A private company has no 
power to force consumers to do anything. Did Judge Jackson find that 
Microsoft threatened to beat people up or throw their bodies into 
the East River if they bought the wrong Web browser? Of course not. 
The only "leverage" Microsoft has is the leverage it has 
earned by producing a product that people want to buy.
    This economic power, the power of voluntary trade, is 
fundamentally different from political power, the power of the gun. 
Yet Judge Jackson is eager to erase this distinction. Thus, such 
actions as upgrading a product to match the features offered by a 
competitor, distributing a product for free, or negotiating 
favorable terms with business partners--all of them normal and 
beneficial business practices--are presented by Judge Jackson 
as if they are a nefarious, mafia-like conspiracy to oppress the 
public.
    Fiction #3. Microsoft harmed consumers. This is certainly 
news to the millions of people worldwide who value Microsoft 
products enough to make the company and its founders rich. Most 
bizarre is Judge Jackson's claim that Microsoft harmed consumers by 
giving away its Web browser, making it unprofitable for other firms 
to sell their browsers Any sane consumer would be delighted to get a 
product for free rather than paying money for it. To speak of 
receiving free software as a "harm" is Orwellian 
doublespeak.
    Fiction #4: Microsoft is a threat to consumers because it 
"could" raise its prices. Under this criterion, anyone 
could be prosecuted for anything. Do you own a kitchen knife? Then 
you might stab somebody--so should the government put you in 
jail?
    Microsoft has the right to sell its product for any price it 
chooses--but anyone familiar with the history of business and 
with Economics 101 knows that market leaders have a selfish interest 
in keeping their prices low. Why? Because they make a lot more money 
by creating a mass market than by creating a product only the rich 
can buy. Henry Ford understood this. So did Bill Gates.
    Clearly, Judge Jackson does not. The only basis for his 
conclusion is the caricature of the successful corporation as a 
vicious "Robber Baron" which, even if it is not 
"exploiting" consumer now, is merely waiting for the 
opportunity to do so
    Fiction #5: Blocking Microsoft's ability to compete will 
foster greater industry innovation. A private company, with no power 
over consumers but the power conferred by offering a useful product, 
is branded by Judge Jackson as dangerous. But far-reaching 
government intervention in the software industry, including the 
massive use of force to shatter Microsoft and control its

[[Page 28796]]

business practices, is presented as an attempt to spur innovation. 
Only those who believe Al Gore invented the Internet could take this 
argument seriously.
    What Judge Jackson really objects to is the fact that Microsoft 
defeated its competitors, i.e., that it was successful. The real 
meaning of his "findings of fact" is that the best 
brains must be crippled, so that lesser brains will not have such a 
hard time succeeding. He and the government prosecutors whose 
arguments he is echoing do not want to foster innovation; they want 
to sacrifice the best and the brightest in the name of 
egalitarianism. They want the playing field leveled by coercion so 
that no one can rise to the top.
    What consumers need is an antidote to the fictions peddled by 
Judge Jackson: the recognition that businessmen have a right to 
succeed by trading their products in a free market Dr. Edwin A. 
Locke is Dean's Professor of Motivation and Leadership at the Robert 
H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland and is 
affiliated with UMD's Department of Psychology. An internationally 
renowned behavioral scientist, Locke's work is included in leading 
textbooks and acknowledged in books on the history of management.
    Appendix 2:
    Altruism in Action: An Analysis of Judge Jackson's Finding of 
Fact and the Antitrust Assault on Microsoft by Adam Mossoff
    Policy Analyst
    The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism United States 
District Court Judge Thomas P Jackson is crystal clear in his recent 
"findings of fact": Microsoft is marked for destruction. 
But why does Judge Jackson want to punish one of the most successful 
corporations in American history? Because Bill Gates proclaimed that 
he wanted "to prove that a successful company can renew itself 
and stay in the forefront"i and he proceeded to do 
just that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \i\ Bill Gates, The Road Ahead 64 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the early 90s, Microsoft had gained a dominant position in 
the software industry by creating Windows, the first commercially 
viable graphical operating system that could be used on PCs. But in 
the mid-90s, Gates realized that the Internet represented the next 
step in the ongoing computer revolution; thus, he created a business 
plan to "stay in the forefront" of this revolution. In 
so doing, he set into motion the same technological and commercial 
innovation that had led to Microsoft's leading market position in 
the first place.
    Microsoft began by investing a staggering $100 million each year 
in Internet research and development, and in four years the company 
expanded its Internet division from only six people to more than one 
thousand. These investments, in the words of Judge Jackson, paid 
"technological dividends.ii (Paragraph 135) 
Microsoft developed a Web browser called Internet Explorer, and 
"after the arrival of Internet Explorer 4.0 in late 1997, the 
number of reviewers who regarded it as the superior product was 
roughly equal to those who preferred [Netscape's] Navigator." 
(Paragraph 135)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ii\ US v Microsoft, No. 98-1233 (TPJ) D.D.C. Nov 5, 
1999) (findings of fact). All references to the findings of fact 
hereafter will refer only to the paragraph number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But Gates took Microsoft even farther. He integrated Internet 
Explorer into Microsoft's Windows operating system so that it would 
be easier to incorporate the fast-growing Internet into all aspects 
of personal computing. In fact, Judge Jackson partly acknowledges 
the groundbreaking work performed by Microsoft in this regard:
    The inclusion of Internet Explorer with Windows at no separate 
charge increased general familiarity with the Internet and reduced 
the cost to the public of gaining access to it, at least in part 
because it compelled Netscape to stop charging for Navigator. These 
actions thus contributed to improving the quality of Web browsing 
software, lowering its cost, and increasing its availability, 
thereby benefiting consumers. (Paragraph 408)
    Concurrent with its technological innovation, Microsoft put into 
practice novel business services and licensing arrangements. Just 
one of many examples addressed by Judge Jackson is the Internet 
Explorer Access Kit (IEAK), a service that permits an Internet 
access provider (IAP), such as America Online or Earthlink, to 
accept a license agreement on the Web and then download and 
customize Microsoft's Internet software. When Microsoft began 
offering this service in September, 1996, it was the first time an 
Internet access provider could create a distinctive identity for its 
service in as little as a few hours by customizing the title bar, 
icon, start and search pages, and "favorites" in 
Internet Explorer. The IEAK also made the installation process easy 
for IAPs. With the IEAK, IAPs could avoid piecemeal installation of 
various programs and instead create an automated, comprehensive 
installation package in which all settings and options were pre-
configured (Paragraph 249)
    More than 2,500 access providers--representing more than 
95% of the Internet subscriber market in the US--used 
Microsoft's IEAK service. (Paragraph 251) Notably, Netscape did not 
create a similar service until nine months after Microsoft 
introduced IEAK, and Netscape charged almost $2,000 for something 
Microsoft offered for free. (Paragraph 250)
    Microsoft blended technological innovation with business acumen 
and thus offered its business partners an integrated package of new 
technology and new business opportunities. In exploiting these 
opportunities: Microsoft often offered "valuable 
consideration"--such as special discounts-to companies 
like Compaq, IBM, and Intel as an incentive to adopt its Internet 
Explorer and other Microsoft technology In fact, Judge Jackson uses 
the term "valuable consideration" eight times to 
describe Microsoft's business agreements with other 
companies--leaving the honest reader to conclude that 
Microsoft's dealings were not some form of coercion but rather 
value-for-value trades.
    For instance, Microsoft beat Netscape in developing a special 
type of browser that America Online (AOL) required for its Internet 
service As a result, the two companies entered into several 
agreements in 1996. In exchange for AOL's commitment to use 
Microsoft's Internet software, Microsoft promised to provide AOL 
with unprecedented access to Internet Explorer source code, 
extensive technical assistance, "free world-wide distribution 
rights to Internet Explorer," an assurance "that future 
versions of its Web browsing software would possess the latest 
available Internet-related technology features, capabilities, and 
standards," and the placement of an AOL icon in a special 
folder on the Windows desktop. (Paragraph 288)
    This relationship has been advantageous to both parties. Overall 
usage of Internet Explorer has risen dramatically, and as a result 
of this agreement AOL registered almost one million new users in a 
single year--11% of its total membership--through its icon 
on the Windows desktop. This fact alone prompted AOL to state in 
1998 that its business arrangement with Microsoft was an 
"important, valued source of new customers for us." 
(Paragraph 302)
    Microsoft's achievements should be held up as a model of how to 
create and maintain a highly productive, innovative company. Yet 
Judge Jackson is unable to view any of these facts in a positive 
light. While Judge Jackson recognizes many of the concrete facts 
that demonstrate Microsoft's productive achievement, he is incapable 
of praising the innovation and business acumen that led to 
Microsoft's success.
    Instead, his descriptions are clouded by slanted, inflammatory 
terms that attribute vicious motives to Gates and his company. When 
Microsoft created new technology to compete with its rivals, Judge 
Jackson describes the company's motivation as "fear" and 
"alarm." When Microsoft offered incentives to its 
business partners, Judge Jackson decries this as the 
"quashing" and "stifling" of rivals. When 
Microsoft licensed its products only under conditions favorable to 
its long-term success, Judge Jackson describes these actions as 
"threats" and "force." (Judge Jackson uses 
variations of "threat" no fewer than twenty times and of 
"force" no fewer than sixteen times to describe 
Microsoft's actions.) When Microsoft refused to support its 
competition, Judge Jackson calls this "punishment." When 
Microsoft ingeniously melded technological and business strategies 
to convince consumers that its products were the best, Judge Jackson 
sees the company as "seizing control" and trying to 
"capture" the market.
    Even worse than his slanted terminology are his substantive 
arguments, in which he sets up impossible standards according to 
which no successful business could escape prosecution For example, 
Judge Jackson writes early in his ruling that:
    It is not possible with the available data to determine with any 
level of confidence whether the price that a profit-maximizing firm 
with monopoly power would charge for Windows 98 comports with the 
price that Microsoft actually charges. Even if it could be 
determined that Microsoft charges less than the profit-maximizing 
monopoly price, though that would not be probative of a lack of 
monopoly power, for Microsoft could be charging what seems like a 
low short-term

[[Page 28797]]

price in order to maximize its profits in the future for reasons 
unrelated to underselling any incipient competitors (Paragraph 65) 
(Emphasis added.)
    Judge Jackson admits that it is not possible to tell whether 
Microsoft is in fact charging a monopoly price. Yet he dismisses 
this lack of evidence as irrelevant because Microsoft could simply 
be using low prices today in order to "capture" the 
market and charge exorbitant prices at some future date. In other 
words: Microsoft is a monopolist if it charges prices that are 
deemed "too high"--but it is also a monopolist if 
it charges prices that are too low. By virtue of its dominant 
position in the industry--that is, by virtue of its 
success--Microsoft is damned if it does and damned if it 
doesn't.
    Judge Jackson's visceral antagonism to business is also revealed 
by his condemnation of Microsoft for winning the browser battle 
against Netscape when "superior quality was not responsible 
for the dramatic rise [in] Internet Explorer's usage share" 
(Paragraph 375) Note the implicit premise in this condemnation: If 
Microsoft hasn't produced a product that is technologically 
superior, then only commerce can explain its success. Jackson is 
repulsed by the notion that successful computer companies require 
both technological savvy and business skills; in his ideal world, 
Silicon Valley would be populated solely by computer scientists with 
nary an "alarming" venture capitalist or 
"threatening" businessman in sight.
    Judge Jackson's praise for innovation, however, might seem to 
contradict his overall attack on successful businesses. 
Technological innovation is a source of business success, is it not? 
Although Judge Jackson recognizes that technological innovation 
causes businesses to succeed, he believes that this innovation has 
another, more legitimate, function. He writes: In many cases, one of 
the early entrants into a new software category quickly captures a 
lion's share of the sales What eventually displaces the leader is 
often not competition from another product within the same software 
category, but rather a technological advance that renders the 
boundaries defining the category obsolete. These events, in which 
categories are redefined and leaders are superseded in the process, 
are spoken of as "inflection points." (Paragraph 59) 
(Emphasis added.)
    Innovation appeals to Judge Jackson not because it leads to the 
creation of wealth, but rather because it tends to tear down the 
market leader. He argues that the emergence of the Internet in the 
mid-90s was one such "inflection point." (Paragraph 60) 
Thus. the nature of his support for innovation explains his disgust 
with Microsoft's defeat of Netscape: By introducing its browser 
product sooner, Netscape should have replaced Microsoft--if 
only Microsoft had not engaged in the "vicious" 
commercial competition that ensured its continued leadership in the 
computer industry.
    These beliefs ultimately lead Judge Jackson to conclude that 
Microsoft's "monopoly power" has "harmed consumers 
in ways that are immediate and easily discernible?" (Paragraph 
409) What are these alleged harms? Judge Jackson claims (wrongly) 
that the integration of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer does not 
allow employers to block employees from surfing the Web He asserts 
that vast "confusion" reigns among consumers--but 
beyond one or two offhand references throughout the rulin9, he never 
explains this vague allegation Moreover, he claims, the integration 
of Windows and Internet Explorer has created slower computers with 
more bugs--as if computers are slower and less dependable than 
they were two years ago! One might regard such mythical 
"harms" as the laughable allegations of a 
Luddite--if they did not come from a judge who wields the 
coercive power of the federal government
    Regardless of how trivial these alleged harms may be, Judge 
Jackson seems sincerely to believe that Microsoft is acting as a 
vicious monopolist Why? He answers this question in the last few 
sentences of his ruling: "Microsoft's past success in hurting 
such companies and stifling innovation ... occur for the sole reason 
that [other companies and their innovations] do not coincide with 
Microsoft's self-interest." (Paragraph 412) (Emphasis added.) 
It takes Judge Jackson more than 200 pages, but in the end he names 
the essence of his disgust for Microsoft--and the essence of 
the antitrust laws In so doing, Judge Jackson exposes the 
fundamental moral premise dictating his factual distortions, his 
fallacy-ridden arguments, and his illogical conclusions: a hatred 
for any form of self-interest The morality of altruism or self-
sacrifice is often presented as a form of benevolence, as if it 
simply means being nice to other people. But the actual meaning of 
this philosophy is a hatred of success. Under this morality, anyone 
who achieves some extraordinary wealth or distinction owes it to his 
fellow men to sacrifice what he has earned--including giving 
away his whole fortune, as and when it is demanded by others. (This 
is essentially what has been demanded of Bill Gates) But what about 
those who have not achieved anything? They are entitled to welfare 
programs, private charities, protective legislation, and a host of 
other unearned benefits to be paid for by those who have succeeded. 
In this system, anyone who earns success through his own effort is 
to be punished, while anyone who hasn't exerted any effort and 
hasn't attained any success is to be rewarded.
    Far from standing for benevolence or good will, such a moral 
outlook stands for destruction. This code of sacrifice demands an 
assault on a Microsoft or a Bill Gates. By amassing so much money 
and achieving so much success, they must be shirking their duty to 
sacrifice to others. But it does not demand the destruction of the 
Netscapes of the world because, by virtue of having faltered, they 
are the "have-nots" who are entitled to benefit from the 
sacrifice of their more-successful competitors.
    Note that the ultimate standard of this moral outlook is not the 
well-being of the poor, the weak, the downtrodden; has the welfare 
state ever achieved these aims? Instead, the goal is the sacrifice 
of the rich, the strong, and the powerful--not to achieve any 
positive aim, but simply to punish them because they are rich, 
strong, and powerful.
    The altruist connection to antitrust is evident in the mere fact 
that Judge Jackson could have applied the antitrust laws against 
Microsoft without finding any harm at all. Although the ostensible 
purpose of antitrust is to "protect consumers" from 
alleged "monopolists," court decisions consistently 
belie this fiction. In one of the first cases defining the doctrine 
of antitrust, a large railroad trust defended itself against 
prosecution by arguing that its price-fixing plan resulted in lower 
prices for consumers. Since the stated purpose of the 1890 Sherman 
Antitrust Act was to protect consumers, and since consumers actually 
benefited in this case, the defendant logically concluded that the 
antitrust laws should not apply to its practices. The Supreme Court 
rejected this argument and ruled that the railroad trust was guilty. 
In an illuminating statement, Justice Peckham declared: "in 
this light it is not material that the price of an article may be 
lowered. It is in the power of the [monopolist] to raise 
it." \iii\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \iii\ United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 
166 US 290, 324 (1897), emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Interestingly, Justice Peckham was an ardent conservative who 
was one of the principal advocates of "freedom of 
contract" in the 19th century--just as Judge Jackson was 
a Reagan appointee. This proves once again that conservatives are 
not reliable friends of freedom.) Continuing to apply the underlying 
anti-success principle of antitrust, the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 
that a newspaper company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act when it 
fired a distributor for charging rates above an allowable maximum 
price. The Court found that the newspaper "would not tolerate 
over-charging" of its customers, and that it even agreed to 
rehire the distributor if he "discontinued his pricing 
practice"--that is, if he charged lower prices. 
Nonetheless, the Court held that the benefit to consumers was 
irrelevant in finding that the newspaper company acted in 
"conspiracy" with its other distributors to set 
prices--thus its actions were "an illegal restraint of 
trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act." \iv\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \iv\ Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 US 145, 153 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Harm to consumers has nothing to do with the purpose of 
antitrust. The antitrust laws are intended only to punish 
"power"--but since economic power is earned on the 
free market, this means that the purpose of antitrust is to punish 
successful business practices. Antitrust case law is replete with 
examples of companies being punished, not for any alleged harm, but 
simply for having the acumen to remain successful in their 
industries. A ski resort in Aspen, Colorado, was not only found 
guilty in 1985 of violating the antitrust laws because it 
successfully competed against its only rival; it was also held to a 
"duty under antitrust law to help a 
competitor." \v\ In the famous case against ALCOA in 
1945, Judge Hand declared that "the successful competitor,

[[Page 28798]]

having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he 
wins."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \v\ "Olympia Equipment Leasing Go. v. Western Untion 
Telegraph Co.. 797 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir. 1986), citing Aspen 
Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 US 585 (1985) 
(holding that monopolist has a duty to help a competitor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But he contradicted himself in the very next paragraph, 
concluding that ALCOA insists that it never excluded competitors: 
but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively 
to embrace each new opportunity as it opened, and to face every 
newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, 
having the advantage of experience, trade connections, and the elite 
of personnel.\vi\ ALCOA's ability and success, by Hand's reasoning, 
was the deciding factor for finding it guilty of violating the 
antitrust laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \vi\ US v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 431 (2d 
Cir. 1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this legal context, Microsoft was doomed before it even 
set foot in the courtroom. The media, in an anti-Microsoft feeding 
frenzy, often highlighted mistakes made by Microsoft's counsel 
during the lengthy (and ongoing) trial. Yet Microsoft's attorneys 
could have performed flawlessly, and Judge Jackson would still have 
produced the same ruling. The reason is that Microsoft is an 
extremely successful company; Gates is a unique combination of 
technological genius and businessman, reminiscent of earlier 
American giants like Thomas Edison Thus, it was irrelevant how hard 
Microsoft's attorneys worked or how much intellectual vigor they 
brought to their legal briefs and courtroom arguments. These things 
were irrelevant because no army of lawyers could hide a single, 
essential fact--the only fact necessary for applying the 
antitrust laws: Microsoft succeeds at what it does.
    The punishment doled out for success is paralysis. Judge Jackson 
makes it clear that Microsoft must not be permitted to capitalize 
upon its well-earned success. Because it has created values, it must 
now relinquish them. Does it matter that Microsoft has earned its 
success by producing a better product, by offering better incentives 
to its business partners, and by providing better service to 
software developers and Internet access providers? No.
    Such facts do not matter to a man who believes that a successful 
company has a moral duty to sacrifice to its lesser 
rivals--especially when that man has the legal power to coerce 
the company to obey its alleged duty. With every slanted term and 
with every absurd conclusion, Judge Jackson practically screams his 
unstated moral premise: Since Microsoft is a leader in the computer 
industry, it must sacrifice the values it has created because it has 
created them In his ruling, Judge Jackson claims to set out the 
objective facts underlying his impending application of the 
antitrust laws to Microsoft. But the only thing he manages to 
establish is his own animosity towards commercial success. What 
drives this animosity is the underlying moral justification for 
antitrust: altruism's hatred of success.
    The basis for Judge Jackson's ruling is not any 
"monopoly" allegedly controlled by Microsoft; it is the 
monopoly commanded by the morality of altruism over our culture. 
That monopoly can be seen, unfortunately, in Bill Gates's sanction 
of his own destruction in a comment immediately after the ruling, in 
which he declares that "because of our success, we understand 
that Microsoft is held to a higher standard, and we accept that 
responsibility." \vii\ vii As long as this moral 
monopoly remains unchallenged, legal doctrines such as antitrust 
will continue to punish successful businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \vii\ "Statement by Bill Gates on the Findings of 
Fact," www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00030005

Henry R. Ochel, Jr.
1155 East 2100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a yahoo Internet user I would like to voice my opinion 
concerning the Microsoft lawsuit. I urge you to support the 
settlement and encourage the various companies to get back to the 
business of technology research. It is my belief that millions of 
dollars are being spent to stifle competition when these companies 
should be focused on new markets and technology. Please do what is 
in the best interest of consumers through out the United States and 
settle this costly suit.
    Sincerely,
    Henry R. Ochel, Jr.



MTC-00030006

2035 Harbert Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104-5329
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record, per 
the Tunney Act, as supporting the settlement that was reached 
between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. The 
court battles between these two entities went on for over three 
years, and cost millions of dollars. This is time and money that 
could have been put to much better use.
    Microsoft did not get off easy by any stretch of the 
imagination, and has had severe restrictions placed upon it. For 
example, Microsoft will now have to turn over data and source code 
that makes up internal interfaces in Windows' products. This is a 
first in an antitrust settlement, and is not fair in that it makes 
them forfeit their intellectual property. I think this goes too far. 
Plus they will have to deal with a technical oversight committee 
watching over Microsoft's every move and testing their compliance 
with the terms of the settlement.
    Enough is enough, this has gone on too long, cost too much 
money, and is too harsh on Microsoft. End this now. I support any 
settlement, even though it is not 100.*,'o fair, which ends the 
litigation against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Vincil C. Bishop, Jr



MTC-00030007

568 Scenic Hills Drive
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case for quite 
some time now, and quite honestly this is getting a little out of 
hand. I am pleased that a settlement has been reached in the matter, 
and I believe it is in the best interest of the public to have the 
settlement finalized rather than dragged out any longer. The economy 
has suffered as a result of this seemingly endless suit, as has; the 
technology industry. Naturally, consumers have begun to suffer as 
well. Time is getting to be of the essence in this case, and I see 
no reason to reject this settlement.
    After extensive negotiations, Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice reached an agreement on various terms that would prevent 
antitrust violations on Microsoft's part in the future and allow 
Microsoft's competitors more of an edge in the market. Microsoft 
has, for instance, agreed to reformat future versions of Windows so 
that non-Microsoft software will be able to be introduced and 
supported within the Windows operating system. Microsoft has also 
agreed to refrain from retaliation should sofa, are be introduced 
into the market that directly competes with Microsoft programs. I 
believe that these terms are fair; in fact, Microsoft has agreed to 
conditions that extend to products or policies that the Court of 
Appeals did not, in fact, find to be unlawful.
    This settlement is, I believe in the best public interest. No 
further action needs to be taken at the federal level. I urge you to 
support the settlement and allow the Justice Department to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Hao Chen



MTC-00030008

Name: James W. Putt
Company: PFE Management
Voice Number: 445-2590
Fax Number: 445-2590
77 Mary Ann Lane
Wyckoff, NJ 07481
Date: Monday, January 28, 2002
Total Pages: 2
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Name: Attorney General
Company: US Government
Voice Number:
Fax Number: (202) 3071454
Note: Please include my attached letter in you decision making 
process.
Jim Putt
James W. Putt
77 Mary Ann Lane
Wyckoff, NJ 07481
January 28, 2002
Attorile3, General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft 
settled. I feel that the case has been active long enough, and that 
ending it according to the settlement reached in

[[Page 28799]]

November is fair. An important reason I would like to see the case 
settled is because of the concessions Microsoft is agreeing to. I 
have not felt positively about the company bundling Windows-related 
programs onto computers, and the new removal features will give 
users and computer manufacturers a wider range of choices. 
Microsoft's competitors will now be able to more easily place their 
own programs on the Windows platform. Because of that and the other 
provisions in the settlement, I believe settling the suit is in the 
best interests of the public.
    Microsoft is approaching the settlement reasonably, and I urge 
you to do the same. Please end the case without additional delay.
    Sincerely,
    James Putt



MTC-00030009

5235 W Pershing Avenue
Glendale, Arizona, 85304
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 205301
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have long been a Microsoft supporter and was angry to see a 
case being brought against them in the first place. Microsoft is a 
company that is being punished for simply being too successful and 
the government simply needs to keep their hands off of business. The 
settlement, that has taken three long years to work out, I think 
adequately covers many off the issues that people had with 
Microsoft. Because of the terms of the settlement, Windows will have 
greater compatibility with a wider array of products and relations 
with other software developers won't be tarnished because of this 
case. I feel that this case will improve things overall in the 
software industry, if that is it is ever over and done with.
    I know that there will he many letters coming in concerning this 
issue, but I also know that a good deal of them will support 
Microsoft. Please pay attention to how much the average person care 
about Microsoft and end any further Federal litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Beverly Goyen



MTC-00030010

LTC Bernard R Buchta (US Army, Ret)
5100 Cameron Drive
Troy, Michigan 48098
.. E-mail: MrBuchta @ home.com
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a six-year teacher of PCs and the Windows operating system, I 
would like to voice my strong support for settling the pending 
Microsoft case.
    My experience as a PC instructor and my 26-year's as a military 
logistics officer has taught me the great value of standardization. 
Standardization buys everyone a lot. And, after standardization is 
achieved, "the payback is forever." Witness: When we go 
to war, we want our bullets to fit into our allies' guns and rifles, 
and want theirs to fit into ours. We want to be able to share, 
substitute and interchange their artillery rounds, fuel, and 
rations, etc., with ours. It's called being 
"Interoperable." It's a great force-multiplier and keeps 
costs down.
    Standardization, by definition, creates efficiency. It also 
makes for convenience and ease of use. Now, today, we need 
standardization and efficiency more than ever. Therefore, the 
proposed solution seems like a fair compromise that will provide the 
most effective long-term results for consumers.
    As seen with the International Standards Organization, the 
uniformity of Windows* and its supporting products is an asset to 
all computer users. This includes business and industry, schools, 
home users, . .. just everyone!
    Technology is complicated enough for the average person, so the 
advantages Microsoft provides with the scope of their software 
presence is immeasurable in the form of America's almost seamless 
transition into the information age with young and old alike. Though 
I did not respect the government's case, the restrictions imposed 
with this deal are far more favorable than the possibility, of a 
corporate break up and chaos within the computer world. Based on the 
new, more even-handed approach of Microsoft toward competitors, and 
those who do business with competitors, plus the implementation of 
an objective technical committee of experts to ensure compliance, it 
seem to me it would be in the best interest of all parties involved 
to proceed with this agreement. This will save the consumer a great 
deal of heartache. It will also permit continued interoperability in 
future systems and software programs.
    Thank you very much for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    LTC, OrdC
    US Army (Ret)
    P.S.
    You're doing a great job in the War on Terror.
    Don't let them grind you down!



MTC-00030011

651 North Washington Street.
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 18705
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion in the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. While I am glad 
to see Microsoft is not being broken up, I do believe some of the 
concessions Microsoft are making axe not in the best interest of the 
public. Microsoft must integrate their software with different 
software makers' products to allow for more effective development of 
windows interfaces and technology. But other concessions such as 
contractual restrictions and windows design obligations seem to go 
against intellectual property fights and patent laws.
    I think that the IT sector is hurt badly enough without any 
further litigation brought against Microsoft by the nine states who 
oppose the settlement. I look forward m seeing Microsoft focusing on 
business and watching one of the premier companies in the world keep 
on thriving.
    Sincerely,
    Hudson Zhu
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030012

1651 Nocatee Drive
Miami, FL 33133-2540
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing to urge you to accept the pending deal in the 
Microsoft case. This agreement offers the competition plenty to work 
with to gain ground in the software market and should mean an end to 
this costly government action.
    Microsoft is one of the great success stories in the history of 
U.S. business and should not be disbanded because their competitors 
can't gain consumer support and market share. With the pending 
settlement, the company has made extensive moves to give their 
rivals more opportunities to succeed, from licensing its 
technologies to disclosing its internal code for the Windows 
operating system. The added verification of a three-person group of 
experts to monitor the deal should provide added assurance of the 
plan's long-term effectiveness.
    Please make sure to confirm this court-mediated compromise at 
the soonest time possible, as these steps provide plenty of options 
for computer makers and give software developers more than enough 
chance to compete. Any further action is unnecessary. Please make 
the right decision.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Riemer
    Rebecca Weymouth



MTC-00030013

Brian Showalter
14713 W. 149th Court
Olathe, KS 66062-4623
bshowalter @ sbcglobal.net
January 28, 2002
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
6O1 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D* 20530-0001
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Re: Comments regarding the Proposed Final Judgement
United States v. Microsoft
Civil Action No. 98-1232
    As a United States citizen and experienced computer professional 
who has at times been compelled to work with Microsoft products, I 
would like to express my opposition to the settlement that has been 
proposed for the USDOJ's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I feel 
that the terms of the settlement as currently specified are weighted 
far too heavily in favor of Microsoft, and that they will do nothing 
to prevent Microsoft from continuing to abuse its monopoly position 
to stifle competition and lock customers into its

[[Page 28800]]

products. The terms also significantly underestimate the lengths to 
which Microsoft has shown it is willing to go to root out loopholes 
in any agreements it enters into and exploit them in such a way that 
any intended restrictions on its behavior are effectively 
neutralized, T also feel that the terms will do literally nothing to 
ease the market barrier to entry for new products, particularly 
open-source products such as the Linux operating system, which may 
happen to directly compete with Microsoft's offerings.
    There are a number of problems with the settlement which others 
have outlined and on which I will not 9o into further details. 
However, I am dismayed by the extent to which the proposed 
settlement focuses almost completely on attempting to restrict 
Microsoft's behavior on the Windows desktop and middleware 
platforms, to the virtual exclusion of server platforms and other 
operating system products that are offered or soon to be offered by 
Microsoft. In particular, the name "Windows" is 
mentioned 56 times in the document, yet no mention is made of the 
embedded operating system market or of Microsoft's explicitly stated 
intention to replace the Windows desktop and server platform with 
the .NET initiative. Furthermore, the definitions of 
"operating system," "personal computer," 
"Microsoft Platform Software," and "Windows 
Operating System Product" in the document refer entirely to 
desktop operating systems intended for use by a single user at a 
time. This loophole would have the effect of rendering Section III.A 
moot in its entirety should Microsoft attempt to retaliate against 
an OEM that is attempting to market a competing SERVER platform on 
its products. Additionally, the proposed settlement does nothing to 
preclude Microsoft from dropping the Windows brand name altogether 
and continuing their customer lock-in, competition-stifling and 
monopoly-extending behavior on a similar but differently named 
platform.
    Dan Kegel has done an excellent analysis which may be found 
online at (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html). Mr. Kegel's 
site also contains links to several other very compelling analyses. 
Due to the flaws which I and others have pointed out, the settlement 
as it is currently written does not serve the public interest and 
should not be accepted without considerable revisions to ensure that 
the market is not tilted unfairly in Microsoft's favor. Thank you 
for your time and for considering my point of view.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Showalter
    Programmer/Analyst



MTC-00030014

Joyce Newell, M.S.W.
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
facsimile transmittal
Joyee Newell L.C.S.W
2729 Blair Stone Lane
Tallahassee. Fl. 32301
Phone (850) 871t-0279
Fax (850) 878-0459
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has been three long years of litigation between Microsoft and 
the Department of justice and quite frankly it is tirr a to put this 
issue to rest. I am an avid supporter of Microsoft and am very 
pleased that the settlement is acceptable at the federal level hut 
am puzzled as to the persistence of the nine remaining states, Is it 
not obvious to them the negative effects that this continued 
litigation has on the economy and on the Technology industry? I 
trust that; my views and those of others will contribute to the 
expeditious settlement of this matter.
    Microsoft's innovations have done much to enhance productivity 
both on and off the job and is doubtless an Industry icon. This 
company has made significant contributions to the economy and the 
overall growth of our country and the sooner this matter is settled 
the sooner Microsoft is able to rededicate their full attention to 
doing what it does best--innovate Looking closely at the 
details of the settlement, we will see that Microsoft has already 
done very much to honor the terms. They have agreed to make their 
protocols and intellectual property license available to competitors 
and have made it easier for competitors to promote non-Micro, soft 
software within windows. The list of measures taken by Microsoft 
goes on and on and is a direct indication of their willingness to 
comply.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Newell
    1362 Grovaland Hills Drive
    Tallahassee, FL 32311



MTC-00030015

Mail Boxes Ete.
330 Old Steese Hwy
Fairbanks. AK 99701
(907) 452-2221 Phone
(907) 45%8329 Fax
Facsimile Transmission
481 Valley View Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99712-1327
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 24,2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Winter greetings from Fairbanks!
    I am sending you this e-mail to register my support on behalf of 
the settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. This is the best 
resolution available to America now due to a bad situation. The 
settlement required Microsoft, the attorney generals from the states 
involved, and the Department of Justice, to state their differences, 
make concessions, and reach compromises in front of the Federal 
judge appointed in an effort to avoid countless days of court 
battles and appeals. In the settlement, Microsoft basically kept 
itself intact in exchange for giving up its legal rights. Microsoft 
will release from copyright the software codes of the various 
internal interfaces and protocols allowing servers to interoperate 
for its Windows operating system programs. Microsoft must license 
its other software copyrights and patents to any company that wants 
to use them on reasonable terms. The ability of a business to enter 
into exclusive marketing agreements is often very important to its 
success. Microsoft will no longer be able to contract with computer 
builders to use its Windows operating system exclusively. Monitoring 
of the settlement terms by software engineering experts will make 
sure that the agreement is followed.
    The settlement is in the best interest of America. Please use 
your best efforts to see that the Federal judge approves it. Thank 
you for your consideration and support.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Moberly



MTC-00030016

PO Box 1419
Missoula, MT 59806
Ph: 406-541-4545
Fax: 406-54.1-4543
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Larry D. Williams
Fax: 1-202-307-1454
Date: 1/28/2002 
Re: Microsoft Settlement
CO:
PO Box 14-]9
Missoula, MT 59806
Certified Technologies Incorporated
Phone: 406-541-4545
Fax: 406-541-4543
Toll Free: 866-541.-4545
620 W Addison
Missoula, MT 59801
January 16,2002
Attorney General 3ohn Ashcroft
Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft revolutionized the computer age with the advent of its 
Windows operating system. The standardization and user-friendly 
operability offered by Windows has a wide appeal and is what pushed 
Microsoft to the front of the pack. Microsoft's success is due to 
great innovation and clever products, not surreptitious antitrust 
activity.
    I am content with the pending settlement reached by Microsoft 
and the government because it is fair. The settlement provisions, 
such as Microsoft agreeing to share its Windows source code with 
competitors, represent a very positive development. It is important 
because they are also interconnected and comprehensive. Microsoft 
not only will avoid retaliating against software developers who 
promote software that competes with Windows, but also the computer 
makers who ship the aforementioned software are also covered. 
Together, these measures will lead to an increase in competition and 
therefore remedy the government's primary "beef" with 
Microsoft.
    Everyone wins! Thanks.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Williams
    Controller
    Certified Technologies, Inc.



MTC-00030017

HIMALAYA ENTERTAINMENT
Renata H??
The Attorney, Antitrust Division

[[Page 28801]]

Department of Justice
801 D Street, NW, Ste, 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of proposed consent decree between the 
D??trment of Justice and I believe It represents a fait ??ment for 
both sides.
    The lawsuits here been dragging along for nearly four years now 
and have cost taxpayers $36 million--enough is enough. Let's 
move forward with this agreement good of the country. Please feel 
free to contact me for more information, but my position is 
clear--let Microsoft get back to work and stop w??ting any more 
tax do?? in pu?? of these lawsuits.



MTC-00030018

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This letter is to express my strong support for the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft, It is a 
fair settlement to the antitrust lawsuit. Fair means that it is a 
compromise which all sides can live with.
    This issue has been going on for more than three years. It has 
gown into multiple lawsuits and the millions of dollars. The 
proposed settlement gives the opportunity to close part of the 
issue. If both the DOJ and Microsoft have reached an agreement, 
let's move forward for the good of the economy and in the bigger 
picture, the good of the country.
    Sincerely,
    Katteena Salgado



MTC-00030019

January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    During these times of economic strain, it is important for us to 
watch our spending, and to focus on production. After hearing that 
the recent Microsoft settlement may be even further delayed, I felt 
the need to write you. After years of well thought out negotiations, 
it is time to let the terms of the settlement speak for themselves. 
I support the settlement as it stands
    The terms of this settlement have teeth. Not only does Microsoft 
make various concessions to help promote non-Microsoft software, but 
they have also agreed to be monitored throughout the entire process. 
The settlement will require Microsoft to share information detailing 
the internal interfaces in Windows with its competitors, allowing 
them to more easily install their own software on machines that use 
Windows It is obvious Microsoft is willing to work with the many 
companies in the IT sector so that everyone can get back to 
business.
    I urge you to help get the economy back on track. The delay of 
this settlement can only slow down our growth in the technology 
industry. The finalization of this settlement would be a step in the 
right direction.
    Sincerely,
    Paul W. Budd



MTC-00030020

January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to go on record as supporting the settlement that 
has been reached between the Department of Just?? a and Microsoft. 
The settlement finally brings an end to the three-year-old antitrust 
law suit that has been partly responsible for the sharp decline in 
America's economy. I can remember three years ago when the antitrust 
skill against Microsoft was first announced.
    The stock market and economy immediately started to go down, and 
now we are in the middle of a recession I have no idea how 
economists working for the government did not notice the correlation 
between these two events. In any case, the settlement is fair. The 
increased information shoring and non-retaliation provisions should 
be enough to satisfy even Microsoft's harshest crities.
    The settlement is the best thing that has come out of the 
??titrust su?? between fi?? Department of Justice and Microsoft, and 
I fully su?? pert it.
    Sincerely,
    W??mda Bel??



MTC-00030021

January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As an active computer user, I would urge you to settle the case 
against Microsoft. I have heard repeatedly of the unfair advantages 
that Microsoft has over its competitors and believe this to be a 
ploy on the part of Microsoft's competitors in the industry.
    I have owned a Palm Pilot for over five years while using 
Microsoft Outlook on my desktop computer. I have never had any 
synchronization problems with the two software programs. The charge 
that Microsoft is trying to squash its competition by making 
software that does not work with other programs is unwarranted. 
Please work to settle this case as quickly as possible so that all 
companies involved can focus their time and efforts on software not 
law suits.
    Sincerely,
    Barney Chapman



MTC-00030022

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
Paul F. Moxley most VP @ hro.com
Attorneys at Law
111 Last Broadway Suite !100
Salt Lake City; Utah 841I? "5233
Tel (??1)521-5800 Fax (??01)521-9639 www.??ro.com
Salt Lake City
Den??r
Bou??er
Colorado Spring,
London
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    My comments are made with regard to the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft v. DOJ case. I believe it would be improper to allow 
Microsoft to enter a settlement agreement that does not guarantee 
that future antitrust violations will be prevented. Microsoft has 
been adjudged to have violated antitrust laws. Its conduct was so 
pervasive that the original trial court judge determined that break-
up was the only remedy. That decision, but not the decision that 
Microsoft violated antitrust laws, was reversed on appeal to the 
Court of Appeals. The case is now back before a new trial court 
judge following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to review the 
case. The purpose of the remand is to determine the proper sanctions 
to penalize Microsoft for past conduct and to prevent future 
violations.
    This determination should be made by the court and not by the 
parties. I am informed that the proposed agreement contains critical 
provisions that do not go far enough or that place too much 
discretion into Microsoft's hands. Failure to impose proper and 
adequate sanctions will set an unfortunate precedent for future 
antitrust cases and will do little to resolve the issues in the 
Microsoft litigation.
    The court should resist the urge to adopt a settlement and hold 
hearings to make a proper determination.
    Respectfully,
    Paul T. Moxley
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030023

Casey ]ones
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    The Justice Department and State Attorney General offices' case 
against Microsoft was arguably unwarranted from its commencement.
    As a concerned and active voting citizen, I am focused on how to 
keep taxes at a minimum in our state as well as serving as somewhat 
of a watchdog for the use of taxpayer money at the state level.
    There has been no proof of consumer harm from the monopoly 
behavior of which this technology company is being accused. Yet, 
this suit continued seemingly gaining steam with every new wave of 
national media attention that came with it. At present,

[[Page 28802]]

consumers are no better or worse off than when it all started. 
Unless you consider their position as taxpayers, in which case they 
are much worse for the wear.
    More than $I million has been spent by Iowa's state attorney 
office alone. Millions of tax dollars have also been spent 
cumulatively by the other states involved in the case and tens of 
millions more by the federal Justice Department.
    Now after cycling through mediators and various bumps in the 
road toward bringing this case to an end, there is now a settlement 
proposed. The proposal is one that gives enough to satisfy both 
sides and addresses the consumer concerns. I urge you to accept it 
for the sake of the American taxpayer.
    Sincerely,
    Casey Jones
    Attorney at Law
    7216 Wilton Drive NE
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52402



MTC-00030024

Angie Weible-Jones
January 27,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an individual who owns her own business, I am very interested 
in seeing the Microsoft case brought to Its end. I congratulate the 
US Department of Justice for working hard to find a sound way to 
close this chapter In American legal history. One of the most 
amazing things about the technology industry Is that we are only 
just beginning. The innovations and great strides yet to come should 
be exciting to all of us. However, the costs and risks of Innovation 
are extremely high. Investors and creators must have the confidence 
and the will to move forward,
    When the move was made against Microsoft, It was felt throughout 
the entire industry, This action coincided with falling technology 
stocks and loss of investment capital for start-up companies. The 
entire Industry felt the blow and its suffering is detrimental to 
our nation, When our economy was booming there was much talk about 
the New Economy and the leading role technology stocks had this 
economy. But this all ended about the time the government threatened 
Microsoft. This action raised a cloud of uncertainty around the 
technology industry and many Investors decided it was best to wait 
it out. It is interesting that when technology stocks began to 
slide, it hurt the entire market, If tech stocks rebound it can only 
be a positive sign for our economy, Investors may regain their 
confidence if the government ends Its case against Microsoft,
    Additionally, when the technology industry slows down if no 
longer has the free??? case brought to an end. It is In all of our 
best Interests.
    Sincerely,
    Angie Weible-Jones
    7216 Wilton Drive NE
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402



MTC-00030025

Ronald Skaggs
22801 N Briarwood Drive
Edmond, OK 73003.9425
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think the three-year lawsuit against Microsoft is flawed and 
unjustified. Microsoft has not done anything that can be called 
monopolistic. Instead, Microsoft has done wonderful things for our 
nation, including creating jobs and wealth, as well as making 
technological breakthroughs. I think it is ridiculous that Microsoft 
is being forced to disclose interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. Microsoft has spent vast amounts of time 
and money to develop and innovate. They should not be penalized for 
being the most successful company in the IT industry.
    I urge your office to finalize the settlement, although it is 
flawed, because the alternative of further litigation would be 
detrimental to our nation's IT sector and economy. I believe it is 
time to discard the liberal Democrat notion that every competition 
has to end up in a tie. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Skaggs
    cc: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00030026

BOB L JOHNSON
4276 EAST SOUTH SHORE DRIVE
ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA 16511
8995380
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr, Ashcroft:
    I would like to tell you how I feel about the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I am in favor of the settlement and do not agree 
with the federal government's role in this whole issue. Under the 
settlement, Microsoft will have to share information with its 
competitors regarding the internal workings of Windows, allowing 
them to install their own programs on the operating systems. I am 
retired and use computers to communicate via email. Microsoft has 
done a fine job of" bringing technology into the homes of 
everyday people, not to mention the thousands of jobs that the 
company has created. This lawsuit is a waste of tax dollars and I 
urge you to put an end to any federal action against Microsoft.
    Thank you for hearing my opinion on this matter, and again, I 
support the settlement and hope to see it implemented as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Bobby Johnson
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030027

STA America
225 Lennon Lane. Suite 110
Wa??nut Creek, CA 84588
FAX 925.955-9993
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I write in support of the proposed comet decree between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice, After four years and $35 
million spent pursuing the lawsuit, it is tune that the country move 
On to more pressing business.
    Microsoft is being adequately reprimanded by the proposed 
agreement, as the settlement would address many of the major charges 
against Microsoft. The company would be required to provide 
technical details to help rivals make products compatible with the 
Windows operating system. It also bans exclusive* contracts with 
computer makers that put rival software vendors at s disadvantage.
    Prolonging the settlement would deliver a severe blow to 
California's already shaky financial situation, as our state is 
expected to pay the lion's share of the remaining trial costs. This 
is a fair deal--but more importantly, it is time to put tiffs 
lawsuit behind us for the good of taxpayers. I urge you to move 
forward with the agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Branzuela



MTC-00030028

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
HISPANIC
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
Serving the Central Valley Business Community from Stockton to 
Bakersfield Since 1984
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Our chamber finds the ongoing pursuit of Microsoft through 
litigation a very bad precedent to set for business in America 
Microsoft has succeeded on a global scale and revolutionized the way 
America, and the world does business.
    The business community has always supported the government in 
actions that best serve the interests of the nation. With that in 
mind we ask you to take the settlement now on the table between 
Microsoft and the Federal Government. Ultimately, this long and 
expensive law suit is proving detrimental to Microsoft, tax payers 
and for the business community at large. You have the opportunity to 
bring it to a close. Again we strongly urge you to accept the 
settlement.
    Thank you for your time on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Antonio Gastelum
    Executive Director
    Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
    1900 Mariposa Mall, Suite 105. Fresno, California, 93721
    (559) 485-6840 office . (559) 485-3738 facsimile . 
(559) 977-7030 mobile/m??g
    cchispanicchamber @ sbcglobal.net

[[Page 28803]]



MTC-00030029

Fernandez Translation Services
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a translator and a bilingual aide in the Alhambra School 
District, and have been working in education for more than 15 years. 
I know the problems of our school system first hand, and know that 
increased funding can go a long way towards improving the quality of 
education our children receive.
    That's why I can't believe our federal government has spent $35 
million of taxpayer dollars on the antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. That money is sorely needed in our schools, and could 
have gone to solve real problems facing our children. The only 
positive note is the proposed consent decree between the company and 
the Department of Justice. If the government and Microsoft have come 
to an agreement, I say let's ratify it and get on with Solving real 
problems facing real people. I support the proposed consent decree 
not only because it addresses the major charges against the company; 
it allows our leaders to get back to work on the greater issues 
affecting ordinary citizens.
    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Fernandez
    304 N. Hidalgo Ave., Alhambra, CA 91801 (626) 300-0810



MTC-00030030

Gino's Primo Pizza
"Serving, Southern California for Nearly 20 Years"
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    As a small business owner, I don't want the government telling 
me how to run my business--but I understand the validity of the 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. I also understand that the 
lawsuit has stretched out to four years--and has cost taxpayers 
$35 million.
    I don't want my tax money going to waste--I want to see it 
go to help our schools and our healthcare system. I would also like 
to see it help end the energy crisis--something that directly 
impacts my business. So that's why I'm writing to support the 
proposed consent decree between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice.
    From my understanding, it has a little something for 
everyone--the major issues against the company are addresses 
without preventing Microsoft from innovatin8 new technology or 
responding to the needs of its customers.
    Let's put this lawsuit behind us and get on with the nation's 
business. Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Harvey
    Owner
    717 W. Las Tunas Dr., San Gabriel, CA 91775 626.576.5945



MTC-00030031

Thea Perrino, MPH
206 Chumalia St., Ste. 3F
San Leandro, CA 94577
510.483.6143
January 23,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As an alcohol prevention specialist working with at-risk youth, 
I am deeply concerned that taxpayer dollars have been used to draw 
out the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft for almost four years. 
The $35 million spent pursuing the suit could have gone a long way 
towards funding youth programs throughout the country.
    I understand that a proposed consent decree has been reached 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I support this 
agreement--it's time that we let everybody get back to work 
solving the real problems facing our nation.
    Please feet free to call me if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Thea Perrino



MTC-00030032

Jennifer Zago, RN
360 S. Euclid Ave., #332
Pasadena, CA 91101
626.584.6769
January 23, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Ste. 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a registered nurse, I have firsthand knowledge of our 
nation's woeful healthcare system. Many of my colleagues are 
confronted with shortages and inadequate supplies on a dally basis, 
That Is why I am deeply troubled by the federal government's 
continued pursuit of the Microsoft lawsuit. These lawsuits have been 
drawn out for four years, costing taxpayers upwards of $35 million. 
That money is sorely needed in our healthcare system, and could have 
been put to good use by doctors and nurses throughout our country.
    I understand that there is now a proposed consent decree on the 
table between Microsoft and the Department of Justice that would 
address many of the major charges against the company. I support 
this agreement. It's time that we let everybody get back to work 
solving the real problems facing our nation, like fixing our 
healthcare system and getting more funding to hospitals,
    Please call me if you have any questions.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Zago



MTC-00030033

Edward D. Failor, Jr.
2610 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 747
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Renatta Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement Judge 
Kollar Kottely is considering to end the US Department of Justice's 
antitrust suit against Microsoft.
    As Vice President of Iowans for Tax Relief, I have monitored the 
suit against Microsoft from its inception. I stand in stark 
opposition to my Attorney General Tom Miller's dogged pursuit of it. 
I believe this case has been a waste of taxpayer dollars at the 
state and federal level. It has also been an albatross around the 
neck of the technology industry, making it unattractive to investors 
and uncertain for companies making long-term decisions.
    It is important to the high tech industry, taxpayers and 
investors to end this case as soon as possible. The settlement that 
the DOJ, nine states and Microsoft have agreed to is a very good 
deal for the government and achieves what is most important: ending 
the lawsuit.
    Taxpayers have been bearing the negative impacts of this case 
from the beginning. They have been funding the suit at the state and 
federal level--without their consent. They have seen their 
retirement funds suffer through the downturn the stock market has 
taken since the ruling for a breakup of Microsoft was made back in 
the Spring of 2000.
    I urge Judge Kollar Kottely to approve the proposed settlement 
in this lawsuit in order to stop the needless damage done to 
American taxpayers throughout this process. Thank you for accepting 
my comments as part of the court record.
    Sincerely,
    Edward D. Failor, Jr.
    Vice President
    Iowans for Tax Relief



MTC-00030034

Jamie Hopkins
2610 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 747
Muscatine, IA 52761
Renatta Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I support approval of the proposed settlement Judge Kollar 
Kottely is reviewing that would bring closure to the federal 
government's antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation.
    As a grassroots taxpayer advocate, I know firsthand that ending 
this suit is a priority for taxpayers across Iowa. It is an issue 
that comes up at many meetings and in telephone conversations with 
activists on a regular basis.
    Taxpayers want to see the suit ended, not just to end the waste 
of their money, but also to send the message that the marketplace is 
where decisions about the success and failure of businesses should 
be made and not courtrooms.

[[Page 28804]]

    I am hopeful that the judge will approve the settlement and 
bring an end to waste of federal taxpayer dollars that have been 
spent on this suit. I appreciate the opportunity to register my 
opinions on this important issue.
    Sincerely,
    Jamie Hopkins
    Development Director
    Iowans for Tax Relief



MTC-00030035

Jeffrey R. Boeyink
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
IOWANS FOR TAX RELIEF & TAX EDUCATION FOUNDATION
2610 PARK AVENUE
MUSCATINE, IA
52761 319-284-8080
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial. Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to submit my position on the Microsoft antitrust 
case. There was no outcry from taxpayers for action in this, case. 
Rather, competitors implored the * federal government to make 
sweeping regulatory decisions picking winners over losers in the 
market.
    Iowa attorney general alone spent more than 3,000 hours working 
on this landmark antitrust case filing a federal court document 
asking for $1.1 million to reimburse "the. state* for the 
time. Altogether, 19 states tendered a $13 million tab from lawsuit 
expenses and it has been estimated that the federal government 
spent, some $30 million.
    Nine of the states, the Department of Justice, and Microsoft saw 
fit to settle. There are many more important issues facing. America 
and taxpayers deserve to have their funds utilized in a responsible 
manner, which best serves them With a fiercely competitive 
technology industry Microsoft, like* any business or individual, 
should be afforded economic freedom.
    I urge you to deliver closure for taxpayers in this case and 
support the proposed settlement.
    Cordially,
    Jeff. Boeyink
    Executive Vice President
    Iowans for Tax Relief



MTC-00030036

Richard R. Phillips
Attorney-at-Law
300 E. Second
Muscatine, IA 52761
January 28, 2002
Attention: Renata Hesse
Judge Kollar Kottely
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar Kottely:
    I am baffled by the fact that the Microsoft antitrust suit has 
gone this far. Unfortunately, the lawsuit has had serious 
repercussions not only on Microsoft, but also on the economy and the 
tech sector in particular. It is time to bring closure to this case 
so the economy can begin to rebuild.
    Even through the economic turmoil this case has created, the 
public has seen a variety of new products introduced by many 
different companies. There is real competition in the software 
industry. So many of us are now plugged into the web, a service that 
actually bombards us with free software and offers from hundreds of 
software companies. Many of us have unexpectedly become dependent 
upon high tech in our work and personal lives and are using products 
from a wide variety of companies.
    Just think how much more innovation and creativity there will be 
in software and hardware when this lawsuit is ended and the threat 
of government intervention in the tech marketplace is shelved. I 
hope you will see to it to approve the settlement in this case. I 
believe it to be in the best public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Richard R. Phillips



MTC-00030037

January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Free enterprise is what made our country a leader in so many 
sectors of the global marketplace. Today, the nation's has economy 
weakened and we are facing serious economic concerns. During this 
difficult time, many of us are tightening our belts and curtailing 
our own personal family budgets. I hope you will agree that now is 
the time, to do the same within our government.
    In the antitrust case against Microsoft the total to the federal 
government as of July 2000 was an estimated $30 million dollars in 
taxpayer funds. The suing states spent millions of state tax dollars 
on top of that.
    The majority of participants reached a long awaited resolution 
in this case. We applaud those state attorneys general who signed on 
to this proposed settlement--unfortunately our state attorney 
general is notably absent .from that list. Nevertheless, settling 
this case now is the right thing to do for American taxpayers.
    Those who came together on this settlement have found a 
conclusion that will have positive effects for the industry and 
consumers--those for whom the case was originally brought 
about. I urge you to approve, the settlement before you.
    Thank you for your time and careful consideration.
    Cordially,
    Edward D. Failor
    President
    Iowans for Tax Relief



MTC-00030038

DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER
1 MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE
LEBANON, NEW HAMPSHIRE
03766
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DATE:1/28/02
FAX #:1-202 307 1454
TO: MS ??
ATTENTION:
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER):2
FROM:??
SECTION OF GIM
RETURN FAX #: (603) 650-8770
RETURN TELEPHONE #: 603 ??
Mark Countermarsh
39 Evarts Read
PO BOX 37
North Hartland, VT 05052
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    This letter is to ask you to give your support to the proposed 
agreement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
understand there is a 60-day period in which public comment is 
allowed, and I feel it is my duty to encourage your support of this 
agreement. There is no need for any further Federal action.
    Microsoft has provided so much to this country through creating 
jobs and opening the way for technological innovation in the 
software industry. I don't feel it should be punished for its 
success at the expense of weak competition. The agreed terms provide 
a major opening for other players to build market share and should 
be quite satisfactory to Microsoft's opponents. Software developers 
will benefit from access to Windows internal interfaces and server 
protocols and will even be able to license Microsoft technology 
while marketing themselves without obstacles due to computer maker's 
business limitations,
    Please move forward with this plan and allow the competition to 
prove their worth in the software market without the industry 
disruption of a corporate break up. Our economy will respond, and so 
will the general public, to this very fair decision being 
implemented without further delay, I appreciate your support.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Coutermarsh



MTC-00030040

Microsoft"
January 26, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Penna. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear AG Ashcroft,
    I believe that your decision to settle this Microsoft suit was a 
wise one. Anytime that our government takes upon itself the rather 
extreme position of suing a private business is serious indeed. It 
is important for our government to encourage innovation and 
creativity through incentives, rather than discouraging them through 
convoluted, politically expedient lawsuits. It seems as if this case 
may have had less actual legal merit than it first appeared. In 
these days, we should remain especially vigilant at concentrating on 
far more important issues like national security and budgetary 
problems. It is good for us to settle this case and move on to these 
more important matters. The settlement does an excellent job of 
answering for all the problems that competitors brought against 
Microsoft. By

[[Page 28805]]

allowing manufacturers their own say in how to configure Windows and 
competitors more access to source code that will improve their 
programs" ability to operate in Windows, Microsoft is going 
well beyond what has been asked of them.
    Thank you for your foresight and wisdom in this matter and thank 
you for taking the time to review my opinion in this matter. It is 
about time for the Justice Department ask the people who will be 
most affected by this decision how it will impact them,
    Sincerely,
    Clark Spencer



MTC-00030041

Craig Schannaman
P.O. Box 2001--??
January 22, 2002
R?? Hesse, Trial Attorney
A?? Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1.200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My interest in the antitrust case, U.S. v. Microsoft, comes from 
my concerns as a former state legislative leader and as a satisfied 
customer of Microsoft products. It is no secret that Microsoft is in 
an incredibly competitive and combative business climate. Microsoft 
has maintained its position as the number 1 creator and distributor 
of office systems software by making sure its customers get the most 
innovative systems at the best prices. Perhaps this is the reason 
why this four-year-old case did not show that consumers wars getting 
the poorly served by Microsoft's business decisions.
    I am very concerned about the precedents which could be set if 
this settlement agreement is not approved, and the ball is again 
tossed in the air to see where it may land next. Would Microsoft be 
forced to give away its intellectual property, thus removing its 
technological edge over its competitors? Is the government going to 
begin micromanaging the affairs of information technology research 
and development, thus making it virtually impossible for any IT firm 
in the United States from maintaining a world leadership status? 
After four years in the courts, this case should have examined every 
possible aspect of Microsoft's business pr??tices. I trust that the 
U.S. Department of Justice and nine of the 18 states in this case 
used good judgment in reaching their settlement.
    I hope that it is allowed to end this case and allow the 
benefits of the settlement to help kids in disadvantaged schools. 
Thank you for considering any letter in this public commentary on 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Schaunaman



MTC-00030042

JOHN L. WILDS
LAWYER
3RD FLOOR THREE HUNDRED BUILDING
300 NORTH ??AKOTA AVENUE
SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA 37104-6026
TELEPHONE (603) 332.1822
TELECOPIER (605) 332-0304
January 25, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial A??orney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Su?? 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
    I am submitting my comments to support the settlement in U.S. 
vs. Microsoft Corporation, because the settlement has answered all 
of the significant issues which have survived the court process so 
far. While there are those who oppose this settlement, it would be 
senseless to turn it away. I understand it has taken the Justice 
Department four years and about $40 million to reach this point. It 
is time for this case to be allowed to come to a conclusion.
    No doubt, Microsoft's competitors will continue seeking any 
means to gain an advantage over Microsoft inside the marketplace and 
outside the marketplace. Bringing issues to court is an appropriate 
action when there are significant issues to be answered.
    I think this case has answered these issues, and now it is time 
for the case to be ended. A decision to not accept the settlement, I 
believe, would be perceived as an invitation to a fishing expedition 
which will not serve justice for Microsoft or any other company 
which is involved in the creation and marketing of new software 
technologies.
    I appreciate your attention to my remarks.
    Very truly yours,
    John L. Wilds



MTC-00030043

01/28/2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.8. Department of Justice
6Ol D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The best interests of the future of Information technologies are 
found in the settlement agreement between the Microsoft Corporation 
and the U.S. Department of Justice. The antitrust case, to a large 
extent, plowed new ground in the development of regulating a company 
like Microsoft, which has moved very quickly in the development of 
its software systems. I have been told the settlement answers the 
issues that prevailed in the court process.
    As a state legislator, I am particularly interested In the 
benefit to schools with high percentages of low-income children and 
families. South Dakota has a number of school districts that would 
be eligible for the supply of hardware, software and support in this 
offering. I think it is a fair method of resolving a case like this, 
and it will matter quite a lot to the future of the children 
included in these school districts.
    I appreciate your attention to my statements.
    Sincerely
    Jim Hundstad
    State Representative
    Logislative District 2



MTC-00030044

South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol,
500 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Senate Chamber
Renata Hesse, Trial
Attorney Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
January 28, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The settlement agreement in U.S. v. Microsoft can result in a 
major benefit to education in South Dakota because of the children 
who would be identified to receive computer systems. I understand 
the settlement terms seek to send the systems to school districts 
whore there are disproportionate numbers of children who qualify for 
the fedela1 school lunch aid program. In South Dakota, there are 
quite a few school districts which would qualify under that 
criteria.
    State government in South Dakota has focused on making internet 
use ubiquitous via the Wiring the Schools Program. Our state seeks 
to use long distance learning technologies to make sure our rural 
school districts are on even ground with, the wealthier urban school 
districts. The availability of computer systems via the settlement 
will make this technique a reality for more and more children,
    My letter is sent to support the settlement for the benefits it 
would bring children, arid to express my hopes that this four-year-
old lawsuit can be allowed to be put to rest. The settlement fairly 
and adequately addresses the pertinent issues in the lawsuit, and 
the settlement will allow good things to happen to children who need 
the help, Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John McIntyre
    State Senator
    Legislative District 12



MTC-00030045

South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol,
500 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
House of Representatives
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My legislative district is home to or borders on the Yankton 
Sioux Tribe, the Crow Creek Reservation and the Lower Brule 
Reservation, as well as non-Indian school districts where you will 
find tow-income families and stressed financial resources for 
schools. The people in my district are quite diverse, not only in 
race, but also in terms of ethnic heritage, faith and occupation.
    One cause we all agree on is the fact that a quality education 
will do more to equalize opportunity for children than anything 
else. For this reason, I am looking forward to the settlement in 
U.S. v. Microsoft. The installation of up-to-date computers and 
systems in low income school districts will allow disadvantaged 
children equal access to

[[Page 28806]]

the wonderful learning tools found in the interest.
    I also support the settlement became the antitrust case has 
fully lived its usefulness to addressing the legal questions 
involved. It is doubtful that extending this case beyond it's 4-
year-old lifespan is going to be productive, I hope this settlement 
wig. be enacted so that everyone concerned may benefit. Thank you 
for your attention to my letter
    Sincerely,
    Sam Nachtigal
    State Representative
    Legislative District 25



MTC-00030046

Joanne Lockner
Country Visions
301 3rd Street MW/
St. Lawrence 57373
Studio/Ho??e
605-853-2756
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-trust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
January 25, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My comments are offered here to show my support for the 
Settlement recently obtained between the Justice Department and the 
Microsoft Corporation, support this settlement because it will bring 
an end to a case which has remained in the courts long enough to 
resolve the relevant Issues Involved.
    Beyond the Issues, however, I strongly encourage this settlement 
because it will surely bring a better quality education to children 
who need the most help in South Dakota and elsewhere. I have served 
as a State Representative in central South Dakota where them are 
school districts in farming and ranching communities which are 
considered remote and low income. Pr??sentiy, the state is expanding 
its efforts to Improve the quality and availability of tong distance 
learning. I know there are plenty of rural school districts wh??ch 
need competent computer systems to take advantage of the Internet 
and the state's educational efforts. As an ?? who supports the 
Ar??sts in Schools P?? am excited by the possibilities of helping 
more ch??dren enhance their lifestyles through the arts via the 
Internet.
    Thank you so much for allowing my comments to be considered. I 
think the settlement is a healthy step forward for children and for 
justice.
    Yours very truly,
    Joanne Lockner



MTC-00030047

DR. NONA LEIGH WILSON
415 Medary Avenue
Brookings, South Dakota 57006
605-688-4365 SDSU Office--
605-692-3915 Residence
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Sate 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse: My letter is intended to articulate my support 
for the settlement reached in U.S. v. Microsoft and to help complete 
a four-year-old antitrust case which has addressed the issues which 
have been deemed valid through the court process. It is plainly 
clear that this case has had sufficient time and enough resources to 
fully and fairly consider all of the pertinent issues and develop a 
remedy that is appropriate to the findings involved.
    Any further time and financial resources expended to search for 
additional issues would, in all likelihood, be a wasteful effort, 
and not worthy of the resources of the United States government. As 
an educator, I am very interested in realizing the befits to 
education and disadvantaged children that would result from the 
settlement. This penalty seems to be a wise and useful result of 
this lawsuit. Thank you very much for considering my input on this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Nona L. Wilson



MTC-00030048

H??C Galloways
Electrical Consultants
P.O. BOX 375
Black Hawk, SD 57715-0375
(605) 787-4169
Fax (605) 787-5839
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse: On the issue of the settlement in 
U.S. vs. Microsoft, let my comments show that I support it because 
the settlement will have great value to Indian children throughout 
western South Dakota. The settlement calls for Microsoft to supply 
computers, equipment, software and the technical support they 
require to the nation's neediest school districts, as defined by the 
criteria for federal school lunch aid to students. The U.S. Census 
Bureau has shown South Dakota has three of the nation's poorest 
counties, all of which are located on reservations. South Dakota 
also has plenty of low income counties and school districts in rural 
counties where farm incomes have floundered.
    The settlement should be the last word in the Microsoft 
controversy. This case has had more than enough time and money to 
find remedies to the issues brought before the U.S. Department of 
Justice Antitrust Division. I think it says a tot that nine of the 
eighteen states in the case (South Dakota decided to stay out of the 
case) and the Justice Department have declared they have a 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation. It's not my intention to 
retry the issues in this tatter because I have faith that everything 
which could be done to reasonably remedy the controversy has been 
done. Thank you for your attention to my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Maicki



MTC-00030049

Fax
To: Renata B. Hesse
From:
Fax: (202) 307-1454 / (202) 616-9937
Pagas: 2 (includes cover)
Phone:
Date: 01/28/02 
Re: CC:
. Comments:
CREW & CREW
Attorneys at Law 141 North Main, Suite 706
P.O. Box 923
Sioux Falls, SD 57101-0923
Michael B. Crew
Karen L. Crew
Anje L. Olseth, Legal Assistant
(605) 335-5561
FAX (605)335-762l
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
RE: Settlement agreement in U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms Hesse:
    Please include my sentiments in the public commentary as a 
supporter of the settlement agreement. The sooner this case ends, 
the sooner all parties involved can move on to other matters.
    From what I have been able to learn, the settlement ought to be 
in the final chapter in this case; it has taken four years to reach 
this point. I understand that the issues which ,,,ere deemed 
important by the court have been satisfied in this settlement. I 
believe, the Department of Justice made a wise decision to close the 
book on this issue after an exhausting effort to examine all 
pertinent issues.
    Thank you including my remarks on this commentary.
    Sincerely,
    KAREN L. CREW



MTC-00030050

PUBLIC
POLICY
SYSTEMS
INC.
130 Bowdoin Street, Suite 1108 ??
Boston, MA 08108
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    The settlement made virtually no impact on protecting consumes 
from companies like Microsoft who have monopolies in the 
marketplace, It has many loopholes and its level of enforcement is 
questionable, In addition the settlement leaves Microsoft in a 
position to continually raise prices for their products. This does 
not provide consumers the level of protection they need for greater 
consumer choice. It is my understanding that many consumer groups 
have opposed the settlement.

[[Page 28807]]

    The agreement states that Microsoft "shall not enter into 
any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to develop or 
distribute software that would compete with their products, but it 
is Microsoft that will he the final decision maker on that 
provision, The agreement also ??tates that Microsoft must share 
certain technical information, but only if it would not the their 
security or software licensing. Again, Microsoft will be the final 
decision maker regarding this matter. The settlement does nothing to 
deal with the effects on consumers and businesses of technologies 
such as Microsoft's Passport.
    I find rhea, inadequacies to be too broad to accept this 
settlement. I hope that Microsoft will not be able to continue to 
preserve its monopoly while consumers and competitors are subject to 
the practices that are supposed to be protected by antitrust laws.
    Thank you for your time,
    Regards,
    William A Carito, President
    CC: Attorney General, Tom Reily



MTC-00030051

January 27, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Thank you for your service as U.S. District Court Justice.
    The agreed upon remedies in the Microsoft case allow computer 
operating equipment manufacturers limited access to Microsoft 
Windows to manipulate it in a way that fits their specific needs and 
product. Permits some adjustments to the Windows operating system to 
be made by the average user. It affords other technology 
providers--including Microsoft's direct competitors--the 
benefit of access to technical specifications. It sets in motion a 
machine to enforce these remedies.
    It does the equivalent of disclosing the recipe for the 
McDonald's Big Mac special sauce to all competing fast food 
restaurants. The fact that this only applies to Microsoft and none 
of the other software or operating system manufacturers provides all 
its competitors with an unfair advantage.
    Yet, Microsoft agreed to settle with these remedies in an effort 
to end this relentless infinitely long litigation. Hopefully you 
will add your consent to this agreement.
    Thank You,
    Jill Stutts
    5520 Antler Drive
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52411



MTC-00030052

January 28, 2002
Jason Deans
7412 N. Thorncliff Place
Raleigh, NC 27616
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As the government accounts representative for Comark, a leading 
regional tech firm, I am thrilled that the long awaited settlement 
between Microsoft and thee federal government is finally at hand. 
All we need now is for the Judge to approve the settlement. The 
Judge, in my opinion, has more than ample reason to do just that.
    First of all, let me say how well I believe that government and 
business can work together for mutual prosperity. It can and does 
happen--EVERY DAY! I see it when I call on governmental 
agencies, officials and departments.
    I enjoy using technology to build a bridge between government 
and business. It makes perfect sense. After all, the emerging 
technologies of today make every segment of society more 
productive--it makes no difference if the end user works for 
the public good or a private interest. Let's forge ahead and 
revitalize the American economy. Let's renew our commitment to 
research and development, so that we continue to lend the world in 
productivity and quality. Let's create a new spirit of cooperation 
between the government and private enterprise. Let's show the rest 
of the world that American don't take recessions lying 
down--that we will act to strengthen our country and assist our 
countrymen.
    Now is the time for bold action. I request that Judge Kollar 
Kotelly approves the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Deans



MTC-00030053

January 28, 2002
Jill Green
4660-302 Tournament Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    During my tenure as Assistant Director of Admissions at North 
Carolina State University, I have witnessed many technological 
innovations and trends. Most of these have involved the use of a 
computer, and many involved Microsoft products.
    While I cannot say with exact certainty why the federal 
government pursued an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, I can 
tell you that it has had a devastating impact on technological 
innovation while it has transpired. Before the lawsuit, tech 
companies were lauded for focusing on research and development at 
the exclusion of politics. In fact, few of the leading tech firms 
employed anyone to conduct government relations programs.
    Microsoft learned quickly that its exclusive focus on making 
life more efficient for everyone had made its competitors struggle 
for market share. The competitors retaliated by getting into the 
political game. The lawsuit followed. Even today, Microsoft's 
competitors are lobbying to conti9nue the lawsuit endlessly.
    We should support the federal government and Microsoft in their 
decision to settle the case. I urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve 
the proposed settlement of the lawsuit. Let's allow research and 
development to march ahead.
    Sincerely,
    Jill Green



MTC-00030054

January 28, 2002
Tresa Jalot
829 Joyner Court
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse: Given that my husband is a local television news 
personality, I follow the news even more keenly than I ordinarily 
would. I began working at a new job just a few short weeks ago, as 
the membership and marketing director for Heritage Golf Club in Wake 
Forest, North Carolina. Unfortunately, the news and my common sense 
tells me that many other folks won't be fortunate enough to find new 
jobs because of the poor economic conditions our country is in. 
We've got to change that.
    Our government must demonstrate that it is serious about 
stimulating the economy. A great first step in that process would be 
to finish the job of settling its antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. I think I speak for most American when I say, 
"Enough already!" Both sides have agreed to 
settle--it's time to move on to something else.
    I believe that I also speak for executives who work in 
membership and marketing when I say that I'm much more efficient in 
my job because of Microsoft's quality products. Database management, 
communications, and publications are all professionally done with 
just a click of a mouse.
    The American people choose Microsoft products because they make 
life better. Life will also be better for many Americans once this 
suit is settled. I request that 3udge Kollar Kotelly approves the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tresa Jalot



MTC-00030055

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Jennifer Sidbury
1425 Suncourt Villa Drive
Wilmington, NC 28409
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As a past Executive Director of the North Carolina Federation of 
College Republicans, it has been my pleasure to work with many 
delightful people in all walks of life. Attorneys, business 
executives and university faculty were heavily involved in the 
statewide organization that I ran. Most

[[Page 28808]]

were people of common sense, good judgement and fine moral 
character. Most wanted the common good to prevail in all political 
proceedings. I have always sought to emulate these people--the 
ones who act in the best interest of ALL of society.
    It is in that spirit that I call on Judge Kollar Kotelly to 
approve the proposed settlement in the antitrust suit between 
Microsoft and the federal government. It's the right thing to do. 
People are hurting. We're in a recession. Let's move the economy... 
and the country forward by ending this whole affair.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Sidbury



MTC-00030056

January 28, 2002
Dan Mansell
Demco Construction
317 W. Second Street Clayton, NC 27520
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have always believed that a limited government is the best 
government. Our federal government should give businesses and 
families a hand up when they need it. Our federal government should 
never stand in the way of American progress.
    I believe that the Microsoft antitrust suit has gone far enough. 
Microsoft is an industry leader. They deserve to be supported. I use 
Microsoft's technology to run my construction business. Start to 
finish, I use the many tools they offer to estimate, bid, and 
execute a job.
    In short, their products help me meet a payroll. I want the feds 
to support Microsoft the way Microsoft supports me.
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Mansell
    CEO



MTC-00030057

January 25, 2002
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antiturst Division
U.S Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DO 20530-001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following are my comments regarding the proposed settlement 
of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    Personal Background
    I am Information Technology specialist who works primarily in 
Systems architecture, design, and development, Over the past ten 
years I have specialized in Information Security. I have been a user 
of Microsoft products (for both consumers and developers) since the 
early 1980s. United States w Microsoft Background The District Court 
and the Court of Appeals concluded that Microsoft had 
"unlawfully maintained its monopoly power by suppressing 
emerging technologies that threatened to undermine its monopoly 
control of the personal computer operating system market."
    The Court of Appeals held "a remedies decree in an 
antitrust case must seek to 'unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct," to 'terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future."'
    Comments
    Scope of Protection Is Too Limited Microsoft's competition in 
the Operating system area varies greatly in type and size. This 
competion includes:
    . direct competitors, organizations creating different Operating 
systems (e.g. Linux)
    . organizations that build applications and middleware that run 
"on top" of an operating system (e.g. Java and Netscape 
Communicator)
    . organizations that customize operating systems for their 
clients (hardware OEMs)
    . organizations that provide software equivalence of the 
services of one operating system on a different system or 
environment.
    The proposed restrictions on Microsoft business conduct will 
provide protection to a subset of these Microsoft competitors. The 
majority of the Proposed Settlement focuses on providing relief for 
1) organizations that provide middleware that run exclusively on 
Microsoft Windows products, and 2) hardware OEM vendors. There are 
only minimal changes in the Microsoft conduct to protect vendors of 
competing operating systems.
    Only Large Competitors Are Protected
    The size of organizations that develop software varies greatly. 
Even Microsoft started as a small number of people. Unlike many 
other businesses, there is not a requirement for a large capital 
investment to start developing software.
    The restrictions on Microsoft conduct apply only to large 
organizations (both OEM and software developers). Not only does this 
not work to terminate the monopoly it creates new exclusionary and 
discriminatory practices which did not previously exist,
    Scope of Interfaces to be Disclosed Is too Narrow
    The Proposed Settlement requires that Microsoft disclose the 
APIs for its middleware. However, in the Proposed Settlement the 
definition of Middleware is so limited that it excludes many of the 
interfaces required by competitors, The Interfaces to be disclosed 
need to include not just Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 
but all other data structures and protocols externalized by 
Microsoft software components. The Department of Justice chose not 
to pursue issues related to the comigling of software and yet the 
Proposed Settlement assumes to have sufficient knowledge of the 
separate pieces (middleware vs. operating system) to provide a 
working definition in the Proposed Settlement. As long as the 
definition of the Windows Operating Systems is outside the scope of 
the Proposed Settlement Microsoft will maintain the control over 
which interfaces must be disclosed. It would be more appropriate to 
require Microsoft to disclose ALL interfaces between all components 
of their products.
    Not All Middleware Components are Identified.
    Given that some of the Microsoft Middleware components that are 
subject to this settlement are mentioned in the Proposed Settlement, 
the ".net" interfaces, as the Microsoft followon to Java 
should be included, Given the complexity of the definition of 
Middleware provided in the Proposed Settlement, it would be 
desireable to include the complete list of all Microsoft Middleware. 
This list should be publicly available for the time period that the 
Settlement is enforced.
    Not All Current Versions of Windows are Covered In the 
Settlement
    All current versions of Windows that are based on Win-32 should 
be covered by the Settlement. This should at least include Windows 
CE and Windows XP Tablet Edition.
    Too Many Restrictions on Disclosure of Security Interfaces
    The Proposed Settlement places restrictions on the disclosure of 
Microsoft security interfaces in the name of National Security. I 
would suggest that the reverse is true. In the current environment 
it is important to nurture the development of security 
functionality. All Microsoft security programmable interfaces, 
protocols, and date structures should be fully disclosed. The only 
restriction should be that the content of some specific data 
elements may not be disclosed (private keys, etc.)
    Limits on Which Organizations can Seek Disclosure of Interfaces
    The proposed Settlement places restrictions on which competitors 
Microsoft must disclose their APIs. The competitors must be of 
sufficient size and have a valid business case. This allows 
Microsoft to chose which organizations they wish to compete. Even 
Microsoft in its earliest years would have failed these 
requirements. Given that in the current environment one of 
Microsoft's strongest competitors is primarily a volunteer 
organization (Lunix) it seems likely that Microsoft would not 
disclose any APIs to "Free" Software development 
organizations.
    Poor Enforcement Mechanisms
    A good settlement should include enforcement that is easily 
understood, quantifiable, and verifiable. There should be metrics 
that can be used over a period of time to evaluate the success of 
the Settlement. A good enforcement needs to provide quick resolution 
of issues related the Settlement for the business needs of both any 
plaintiff as well as Microsoft. Finally, them needs to be a 
sufficient motivation to insure Microsoft will not violate the 
Settlement.
    The Proposed Settlement provides almost none of the above There 
is technical review by a three person team but all of their work 
will be confidential and not subject to review. There is no public 
or judicial review of the progress of the Settlement. The only 
option for handling misconduct, outside of the technical team, is to 
go back to court--one of the slowest ways to resolve any 
violations. Finally, given that them is no financial incentive 
required in this Settlement and that Microsoft earns billions of 
dollars using their current business conduct it is hard to see why 
Microsoft will be motivated to make any changes in their conduct.

[[Page 28809]]

    Conclusion
    The Proposed Settlement does not provide adequate changes in 
business conduct of Microsoft to provide a remedy that meet the 
requirements of the Court of Appeals mandate. In some cases the 
Proposed Settlement adds new herders to the competition to Microsoft 
Operating Systems and Middleware. Thus, the Proposed Settlement does 
not serve in the public interest. I recommend that the Proposed 
Settlement be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry L. Hadsell
    2800 Woodley Road NW
    Washington DC, 20008



MTC-00030058

Fax Cover Sheet
Date: 28 Jan 2002
To: Renate Hesse Antitrust Division
Company: Department of Justice
Fax: (202) 616-9937
From Harold R. ANDRLS Sr
Company:
Tel: (301) 935-0057
Number of pages including this one: 2
kinko's
4417 Hartwick Rd.
College Park, MD 20740
Tel: (301) 277-7543
Fax: (301) 779-6417
Comments:
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
28 January 2002
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax (202) 616-9937
e-mail microsof.atr @ usdoj.gov.
    On Shabbas, 26 January 2002AD, an unsolicited virtual message 
was deposited on my telephone requesting my immediate comments 
concerning the "Microsoft" litigation. Please for the 
sake of immediacy do not make the mistake of recasting the story of 
Genesis 25:29-34. The action taken must avoid the ??okology of 
yet another mons?? marching through-out the Lands of this World. The 
objective of governance should be to protect the rights and freedoms 
of People (be they individuals or organizations) against predicatory 
statements by any entity conspiring to sup press and gain absolute 
control or power.
    In presenting and resolving this and similar issues, perhaps 
rite views of Dr. Herbert I. Schiller should be, considered. I 
understand that his observations are available in such works as 
"Culture, inc."/"Living in the number one 
country"/"Mass communication ,and American 
empire".
    In resolving the arguments, Please do NOT make the mistake of 
ESAU by selling ?? need of the moment to satisfy greed.
    "Happy Iris" & Trails!
    Harold R. Andrus,??
    3509 DePauw Pla??
    College Park, MD 207404009



MTC-00030059

447 Larchwood Avenue
Trevose, PA 19053-4407
January 11, 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 antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. In 
light of the recent terrorist attack and the ongoing war on 
terrorism, I think it is absurd that nine states continue to bring 
lawsuits against Microsoft in a case that seemed unjust from the 
start.
    The settlement is too harsh to begin with since entering into 
third party exclusive distribution agreements have never been a 
problem in the past. Also, disclosing internal interfaces that 
Microsoft spent a lot of time and money to develop is a violation of 
their intellectual property rights.
    I urge your office to free up Microsoft to allow them to focus 
on business. This will serve the public's best interests because 
only our strong industry leaders can rejuvenate economy.
    Sincerely,
    John Stern



MTC-00030060

Kory Nanke Letterhead--realtor / business owner
DATE
Judge Kolar Kottely
Renata Hesse, Antitrust Division Public Comment
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kottely.
    After years of litigation, the Department of Justice, nine state 
attorneys general, and Microsoft Corporation--the majority of 
the parties involved in the case--have agreed upon a 
settlement. It is now before you to make your judgment.
    As history has revealed, there is often a six-month to one-year 
delay before the real estate market feels the effects of a 
significant economic change in either direction. An economic 
downturn had begun prior to the horrific events of September 11th. 
However, it was accelerated after that day. Those of us in the real 
estate industry are just beginning to feet the market soften.
    In addition to the much appreciated efforts of President Bush 
and Congress to put forth an economic stimulus package to help 
generate a spark in the economy, settling this case is another 
small, but important step in that direction.
    I urge you to accept the settlement that the majority of the 
parties involved in this case have agreed upon.
    Sincerely,
    Kory Nanke



MTC-00030061

Jim Grabowski
487 Covewood Boulevard
Webster, NY 14580-1107
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Now that Microsoft and the Government have reached an agreement, 
it appears that the states are doing to Microsoft what they did in 
the tobacco suit. They wish to pursue further litigation in order to 
fund their state governments, and I think it's ridiculous.
    Microsoft did not get off easy. Not only did they agree to 
disclose various Windows internal interfaces to the competition, 
they also agreed to not enter into any agreements obligating any 
third party to distribute or promote any Windows technology 
exclusively.
    Let's move on. Our government should focus on more pressing 
issues, and leave decisions about software company size and success 
up to consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Grabowski



MTC-00030062

Fax
To: Renata Hesse
From: Kenneth Brown
Fax: 202-616-9937
Pages: 7
Phone: 202-307-1454
Date: 1/28/2002 
Re: Tunney Act Comments
CO:
Please call 703-608-4222 if you have any problems with 
this submission. Ken Brown
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
e-mail: microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
Re: AdTI Tunney Act Comments
    The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution submits these comments 
under the Tunney Act. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution is an 
independent non-profit education and research organization described 
in detail at www.adti.net. The mission of AdTI is to provide helpful 
policy analysis to advance the ideas of democracy and freedom around 
the world.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Brown
    President
    Telephone Number(s)- office 202-548-0006, cell 
703-608-4222
Why the Microsoft Case Should Be Settled
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Washington, DC
January 22, 2002
    The Hard Truth About Invention in the U.S. Marketplace Two 
courts have reaffirmed that Netscape nor its browser were shut out 
of the marketplace. The browser wars produced a winner and a loser; 
and Netscape was the loser. However, within thousands of briefs and 
legal arguments criticizing the U.S. vs. Microsoft settlement is the 
repeated concern about the future of new Netscape's in the 
technology sector. Almost every other issue is tangential, and we 
must differentiate the arguments properly.
    We see an interchanging of terms being used, specifically, 
"....the settlement should make the marketplace safe for firms 
to compete with Microsoft..." vs. "...the settlement 
should be safe for firms to introduce new products...ie. like 
Netscape

[[Page 28810]]

Navigator..." The Department of Justice has proposed a 
settlement that properly speaks to its duty--to introduce a 
remedy which allows firms to safely introduce new products. 
Microsoft has agreed to the rules; which include a mandate that 
Microsoft disclose any information necessary for rival firms to 
produce fully interoperable products with Windows for competing 
software and servers.
    The reason why critics want a settlement which goes further is 
because they want Microsoft completely out of the way. The case is 
merely obfuscation. With billions of dollars in resources, 
Microsoft's competitors want every advantage because 1) the 
marketplace for new technology is overwhelming and having a chief 
competitor eliminated makes things a little easier and 2) the 
competitors lobbying for a far-reaching settlement are among the 
most aggressive and fierce technologists in the world.
    The reality is that the marketplace, particularly the 
marketplace for new technology has never been safe from a 
competitor. What Microsoft's competitors want is an oxymoron because 
no technology product is ever "competition-free" or 
guaranteed success in the marketplace. This benefits consumers, the 
country and ironically inventors themselves, which makes it relevant 
to observe the reality of the marketplace (beyond the courtroom) for 
a moment. Great Inventors Must Be Fierce Strategists
    Every inventor and innovator small and large must face the 
formidable odds to succeed in the marketplace for new technology. 
Since the day the first idea was registered in the U.S. patent 
office, countless inventions and innovations have become cinders in 
the furnace of competition. Relentless markets in America only 
sustain the fiercest competitors, without exception. Technologists 
rewarded with fabulous wealth and fame did so at the expense of 
employing hard-hitting, merciless strategies. Regardless of 
ingenuity, technologists without the ability to navigate in the 
marketplace were failures; and lucky to even receive credit as 
creators of their own inventions.
    The marketplace for food, furniture and other goods each have 
their challenges. But, the technology marketplace is unique because 
it demands both inventive genius and keen business savvy. The 
combination of the two is rare in individuals and corporations, and 
particularly scarce among pure inventors such as physicists, 
mathematicians or engineers. From the light bulb to the PC operating 
system, every innovator that history has been kind to, had the 
indomitable capability to merge intellectual power with commercial 
insight. In the end, technologists with these qualities became far 
more successful than their counterparts with better inventions or 
greater talent.
    Competitive Inventors Preserve U.S. Leadership
    However, America's owes its technological leadership in the 
world to its competitive battleground. Although education, vigorous 
intellectual property rights and democracy are also credit to 
American invention, its ability to surface inventors with commercial 
savvy, make it a source of the most competitive innovations in the 
world. In the end, the U.S. is a loader in world-changing 
innovations, at the expense of sustaining a "bare-
knuckled" marketplace.
    After an excruciating and lengthy examination by the court 
system, the federal government and 9 states (actually 41 when you 
consider the states that never filed suit) agree on the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft settlement. Regardless of the differences among the 
parties, we can't expect any ruling to settle the differences 
between Microsoft and its competitors. However, this dissatisfaction 
is in the best interest of our country and will only spawn better 
ideas and products that will propel the U.S. to new heights. U.S. 
technological leadership depends on the undying will of its 
innovators to be no. 1.
    The "Electric" War Between Edison and Tesla
    The debate over Windows is similar to many stories about wars 
between rival innovators throughout history, particularly aspects of 
the Thomas Edison story. Although the Edison-Tesla rivalry did not 
involve anti-trust law, the contest details the reality of the 
"invention business" in the most competitive capitalist 
society in the world.
    Contrary to popular belief, the idea of electric lighting was 
not Edison's. A number of individuals had developed forms of 
electric lighting, but none had developed a system that was 
practical for home use. Using lower current, a small carbonized 
filament, and an improved vacuum inside the bulb, Edison was able to 
produce a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Thomas Edison 
didn't "invent" the light bulb, but became a legend for 
making a 50year-old idea a fantastic commercial success.
    Edison's fiercest rival, was an ex-employee named Nikola Tesla 
from Smijlan, Croatia. Tesla was a genius who invented the 
fluorescent bulb in his lab forty years before industry 
"invented" them. At World's Fairs and similar 
exhibitions, he demonstrated the world's first neon signs. Perhaps 
Tesla's greatest invention was the AC (alternating current) system 
we use in our homes today. DC (direct current), an inferior system, 
ironically, was designed by Thomas Edison. After years of fierce 
wars and debate between the Tesla and Edison teams, AC became the 
accepted system of transporting electricity. In fact, Edison later 
admitted that AC was the better system. While both men were geniuses 
ahead of their time, the biggest difference between Edison and Tesla 
was their perspective and approach to invention. Edison had a keen 
understanding of capital markets and the strategies necessary to 
finance, promote and commercialize his inventions. Tesla was a great 
theoretician who worked perpetually to finance experiments.
    Edison held a world record 1,093 patents and died a wealthy, 
famous man. Tesla received over 800 patents, died penniless and was 
literally erased from the history books. In fact, Tesla was poor the 
last thirty years of his life and arguably would have eclipsed 
Edison's patent record if he had the capital. Remembered for many 
things, Edison was known for saying, "I have more respect for 
the fellow with a single idea who gets there than for the fellow 
with a thousand ideas who does nothing." Edison's vision 
reflects the view of anti-trust law, that the greater value is in a 
stable marketplace, not the resurrection of competing ideas.
    The Other Truth about Netscape
    The Appeals Court ruling reflects another hard 
truth--Netscape fell, because it did. The DC Circuit rejected 
the course-of-conduct theory, under which Microsoft's specific 
practices could be viewed as part of a "broad monopolistic 
scheme." This obviously has made anyone that viewed Microsoft 
as an evil-doer exponentially dissatisfied with DOJ's settlement. 
But again, is the responsibility of the DOJ to make the world safe 
from Microsoft? Netscape maintained its Internet dominance until 
1997, when Internet Explorer's fourth version was able to lap 
Netscape. Netscape Navigator never regained its prominence. In 
addition, by that time, the Netscape product was slow, outdated, and 
unstable, falling to a swifter surging Internet Explorer.
    But perhaps the most unmentioned reality regarding Netscape's 
fall was their announcement to all (Microsoft included) that their 
strategy was to be the middleware that would be the 
"new" Windows, removing Microsoft's flagship product 
from dominance. Hindsight is 20/20 but when you consider how far 
ahead Netscape was in front of Microsoft, there are infinite what 
if's" to consider if it had been mum about its strategy to 
take on Redmond. Microsoft had all but ignored the Internet and it 
is very questionable if they would have been able to play catch-up 
to a well-funded and branded Netscape team. The outcome of this 
possibility almost completely counters any damage claims in their 
civil suit recently announced. After all, Netscape's grand plan was 
never realized, thus the future is incalculable especially when 
taking into consideration the hubris of Netscape.
    Innovators are the Lifeblood of U.S.
    Today, new technology firms use every means available to compete 
including spending billions of dollars on research and development. 
Sun Microsystems, IBM and AOL and Microsoft combine to spend over 
$100 billion annually just on research and development. Firms spend 
exorbitant amounts of money to create and protect to new products. 
But again, this competition is to the benefit of inventors and the 
U.S. marketplace.\1\ Recently, the United States Patent Office 
released its annual list of the top ten private sector patent 
recipients, it reported that for the ninth consecutive year, IBM 
received more patents than any other organization in the world. 
"I am proud that American corporations are leaders among U.S. 
patent holders," said James E. Rogan, Undersecretary of 
Commerce for Intellectual Property. "Patents promote 
technological progress and are a potent source for competitive free 
enterprise."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Patent and Trademark Offfice. January 10. 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USPTO's comments echo the importance of preserving the status 
quo of the U.S. marketplace. In the end, it is in the interest of 
innovation that we close the chapter on

[[Page 28811]]

U.S. vs. Microsoft. The judicial process has sorted through the 
facts and come to judgment. Those dissatisfied with the settlement 
should be reminded by W. M. Deming's famous quip, "Learning is 
not essential, survival is not mandatory." Deming's point 
speaks not only to the Microsoft case; but the hard truth about 
invention and success in the technology business. The court system 
has done its job, and enough precious time has been dedicated to 
legal jurisprudence, It is now the time for Microsoft and its 
opponents to tuck in their chin, learn from their mistakes and 
return to the marketplace.

                    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) List of Top 10 Patent Recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Preliminary
                                     # of                                     Final rank  in   Final Number
    Preliminary rank in 2001        Patents  in            Organization                2000       of Patents  in
                                       2001                                                            2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................           3,411  International Business.                      1           2,886
                                                   Machines (IBM).
2...............................           1,953  NEC Corporation...............               2           2,021
3...............................           1,877  Canon Kabushiki Kaisha........               3           1,890
4...............................          1,6543  Micron Technology.............               7           1,304
5...............................           1,450  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd..               4           1,441
6...............................           1,440  Matsushita Electrical                       11           1,137
                                                   Industrial Co., Ltd..
7...............................           1,363  Sony Corporation..............               6           1,385
8...............................           1,271  Hitachi, Ltd..................              13           1.036
9...............................           1,184  Mitsbushi, Denki Kabushiki                  14           1,010
                                                   Kaisha.
10..............................           1,166  Fujitsu Limited...............              10          1,147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: USPTO, January 10, 2002. The listed patent counts are preliminary counts, which are subject to
  correction. The final listing of patent counts for the top patent organizations in 2001 should be available by
  early April 2002. Patent information reflects patent ownership at patent grant and does not include any
  changes that occur after the



MTC-00030063

E. BLAINE RAWSON
596 East 1050 North
Bountiful, Utah 84010
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write to inform you of my support for the position taken by 
Utah's Attorney General concerning the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    It would have been easy for Utah's Attorney General, as a 
Republican, to join with certain other states in accepting the 
proposed Microsoft/Justice Department settlement. He has been 
criticized by some for being anti-free market. However, this case 
can not be reduced to such simplistic sound bytes. His support for a 
free market is not at issue. Microsoft was found in violation of law 
by a court of law. The real question is what action should be taken 
to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future and what 
penalty should be imposed upon Microsoft: for past violations. The 
proposed settlement does not appear to reflect the extent of the 
findings of violation made by the trial court and sustained by the 
appellate court.
    I applaud Attorney General Shurtleff for holding fast to the 
rule of law, notwithstanding the pressure brought to bear through 
campaign contributions and by certain public officials who would 
have him take a position that may not be in the best interest of the 
citizens of the State of Utah.
    If the settlement does not properly terminate present antitrust 
violations, penalize for past violations, and prevent future 
antitrust violations, then it should not be adopted. I would prefer 
this court hold evidentiary and legal hearings and impose a remedy 
warranted by the facts and law. In addition, the government should 
zealously enforce the remedy to avoid future abuses.
    Respectfully,
    E. Blaine Rawson
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030064

77 Blackbird
Drive Bailey, Colorado 80421
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft case was ridiculous. In my view, it showed how the 
U.S. Government can step in and attack a company because it has a 
huge market share. The competitors complained and said Microsoft was 
unethical even though the stone attackers" business practices 
are largely the stone. The settlement on Microsoft's behalf shows 
how cooperative the company can be in a reluctant situation. It 
includes compromises that far exceed the original scope of the 
lawsuit, and gives their competitors several unfair advantages.
    Please approve the settlement and let Microsoft put the lawsuit 
behind them once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    Jerol Love



MTC-00030065

The Web Practice
Internet alchemy
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: John Ashcroft
FROM: Curt Fluegel
COMPANY
DATE: 1/28/2002
US Department of Justice
FAX NUMBER: 1-202-307-1454
TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2
PHONE NUMBER: 651.842.0475
SENDER'S REF??RENCE NUMBER
RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
Microsoft Settlement
NOTES/COMMENTS:
THE WEB PRACTICE, LLC
175 5TH STREET EAST, STE. 700 . ST PAUL, MN 55101 .
[650 776-993]
FAX: [651] 726-7326 .
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 inform you that I am fully in 
support of the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. The legal battle that preceded this 
settlement drained tax funds, and challenged state budgets. This 
suit was initially brought about to help give the consumer more 
choices in the IT market; instead, it has succeeded in draining 
money from our pockets.
    This settlement is fair and pragmatic. Microsoft has gone far 
and above what it should have needed to do to get this issue 
resolved. The settlement addresses concerns that were not even part 
of the original suit, and Microsoft even compromised some of its 
intellectual property to make the settlement adequately thorough.
    Please prevent any further abuse of our tax resources. The right 
thing to do would be to finalize the settlement and resolve this 
issue promptly. We muse give Microsoft way, so it can return to 
innovation--
    Sincerely,
    Curt Fluegel
    General Partner



MTC-00030066

43 Beaumont Circle Apt. 1
Yonkers, NY 10710
January 25, 2002

[[Page 28812]]

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Since the Department of Justice is accepting and publishing 
public comments for the first time since the antitrust suit was 
brought against Microsoft over three years ago, here are my 
comments.
    Microsoft agreed to the right of third party's to exercise any 
of the options provided by the settlement that would infringe on any 
Microsoft intellectual property right. Microsoft will provide the 
third party with a license to the necessary intellectual property on 
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
    Microsoft also agreed to the establishment of a technical 
committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement and assist with dispute resolution. The technical 
committee will consist of three experts in software engineering. Any 
third party who believes that Microsoft is not complying with any 
provision of the settlement will be free to lodge a complaint with 
an internal Compliance Officer at Microsoft, as established by the 
settlement, the Department of Justice, or any of the State 
plaintiffs that are party to the settlement. Now that Microsoft has 
agreed to those terms, shouldn't Government agree to end litigation?
    Sincerely,
    Syed Kamal



MTC-00030068

SUZANNE F. THORUP
3148 Creek Road
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
January 25, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    This letter will inform you of my opposition to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I understand that Microsoft was found to be in 
violation of the antitrust laws of the United States by virtue of 
uncompetitive conduct, particularly in its marketing practices. It 
is important that the market have viable competitors, including 
those who would make compatible products. Microsoft's practices have 
destroyed any semblance of an open market place. The proposed 
settlement appears to be little more than business as usual. 
Microsoft has once again won, and the consumer has lost. The 
proposed settlement does not resolve the problems identified by the 
trial judge, it has merely postponed their resolution because the 
agreement fails to prevent future violations and does little to 
correct past behavior.
    I am not advocating that Microsoft should be broken up. I am a 
shareholder and believe that Microsoft is still a strong company 
that holds value for investors. However, I believe that Microsoft 
will succeed in a competitive market place. Breaking up Microsoft 
would not be in the best interests of investors. By the same token, 
adoption of the proposed settlement agreement would not be in the 
best interests of the consumers.
    Since the parties have not achieved a reasonable settlement, it 
is time for the courts to do so. Please reject the proposed 
settlement and conduct such hearings as may be necessary to 
determine what appropriate remedies should be employed.
    Respectfully,
    Suzanne F. Thorup
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030069

268 Neptune Boulevard
Long Beach, NY 11561-3732
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 24, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In a few days, the Justice Department will make its final 
decision on the Microsoft settlement. It is my fervent hope that the 
government accept this settlement from Microsoft. I feel that 
Microsoft is giving away too much to the competition, but I 
completely support Microsoft's efforts to end this three-year legal 
war over antitrust behavior.
    The federal government's actions toward Microsoft have been 
abominable. I am completely against government involvement in 
private business affairs. The freedom to innovate must be preserved 
if our country is to continue to be a world leader This country's 
strength has been built from our free enterprise system. Further 
government involvement will continue to hurt our already weak 
economy.
    As a real estate agent, I have exclusively used Microsoft 
Windows and Microsoft Office for years and it has indeed contributed 
to the success of my small business. I also use Internet Explorer, 
my web browser of choice. Nothing on the market compares to 
Microsoft's software products. The competition can put their 
software on Windows and remove Microsoft's, but I will always use 
Microsoft's products.
    I have confidence that Microsoft is doing what is in their best 
interest, to get out from under the hand of government involvement. 
I see nothing but positives for the economy and for the computer 
industry, once Microsoft is allowed to work entirely free from 
further government entanglements. Please do what I feel is best for 
the economy and the people of this great nation, confirm the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Maria Ferrer



MTC-00030070

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP
CHICAGO DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE
1501 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
TELEPHONE 202 736 8000
FACSIMILE 202 736 8711
www.sidley.com
FOUNDED 1866
BEIJING
HONG KONG
LONDON
SHANGHAI
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (202) 736-8067
WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS tbartucz @ sidley.com
FACSIMILE/TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION
From: Name: Tanya Bartucz
Voice Phone: Joanna Harkin 202/736-8268
To: Name: U.S. Department of Justice
Company:
Facsimile #: 202-307-1454
Voice Phone:
Subject:
Message:
Date:   01/28/02
Time: 05:24 PM
No. Pages (Including Cover): 5
    Note: If you do not receive all the pages, please call: Joanna 
Harkin 202/736-8268
SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP
CHICAGO DALLAS
LOS ANGELES
NEW YORK
SAN FRANCISCO
SEATTLE
1501 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
TELEPHONE 202 736 8000
FACSIMILE 202 736 8711
www.sidley.com
FOUNDED 1866
BEIJING
HONG KONG
LONDON
SHANGHAI
SINGAPORE
TOKYO
WRITER'S DIRECT NUMBER (202) 736-8067 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS 
tbartucz @ sidley.com
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION FORM
Date: January 28, 2002 No. of pages including cover sheet:
To: Company: U.S. Department of Justice
Telephone #: Fax #: (202) 307-1454
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: IF NOT USA PLEASE INDICATE COUNTRY & CITY 
CODE NUMBER
From: Tanya Y. Bartucz Ext. 8067 Floor:
    COMMENTS: Attached please find the Tunney Act comments on the 
Microsoft settlement of Griffin B. Bell, Edwin Meese III, and C 
Boyden Gray. An electronic copy will also be submitted Problems with 
this transmission should be reported to: (202) 736-8067
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 28813]]

    We believe the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
("RPFJ") that the federal government and some of the 
plaintiff states have reached with Microsoft should be adopted, and 
that the proposals of the nine states that continue to pursue this 
litigation (the "Litigating States") should be rejected. 
That is so, in our view, for four main reasons. First, the RPFJ will 
serve the central goal of antitrust law--benefiting 
consumers--far better than any of the states" proposed 
remedies. Most importantly, it allows Microsoft to continue selling 
a single, uniform operating system under the Windows name. This will 
directly benefit all the consumers who have relied on Windows' 
continued availability when deciding which computer and software to 
purchase.
    At the same time, the RPFJ will increase the range of choices 
available to consumers by requiring Microsoft to enable both 
computer manufacturers and end-users to turn off Microsoft's 
middleware products such as its Internet browser, instant messaging 
tools, media player, and email utilities. Consumers will therefore 
be free to sample and choose among a variety of middleware utilities 
from various companies. The RPFJ thus strikes a sensible balance 
between the goal of giving rival middleware producers access to 
Microsoft's customers, and the equally important goal of avoiding 
anything that would destabilize the Windows platform on which 
consumers--and indeed most of the software 
industry--depend.
    The Litigating States' proposals strike no such balance. For 
example, the Litigating States would require Microsoft to sell 
stripped-down versions of Windows at court-mandated prices, without 
regard for the technical advantages of integrating middleware and 
operating system functions, or for the importance of a stable, 
uniform operating system. Computer manufacturers would then be able 
to patch competitors' middleware into the Windows system and sell 
the hybrid product to consumers without giving them any guidance as 
to how to restore their computers to the original Windows settings. 
This would effectively destroy the Windows standard. That will not 
benefit consumers; it will harm them. And it is anti-competitive, 
not pro-competitive.
    Second, the RPFJ is narrowly tailored to the findings of 
illegality affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The RPFJ thus enjoins 
the types of conduct held illegal by that court--primarily 
certain exclusive dealing arrangements and threats of 
retaliation--in language broad enough to preclude similar 
behavior, without losing sight of the limited Court of Appeals 
holding.
    In contrast, many of the Litigating States' proposals have 
nothing to do with any of the issues in this case, much less the 
Court of Appeals' decision. For example, the Litigating States would 
require Microsoft to inform them sixty days in advance of any 
acquisition of technology or other intellectual property. Yet this 
"remedy" cannot be tied to any element of this case, let 
alone to any finding of liability that was affirmed on appeal. Other 
proposals are simply overbroad or unworkable, such as the proposal 
that Microsoft notify any software developer sixty days in advance 
of any action it intends to take that might have an impact on the 
interaction between the developer's middleware and Windows,
    Third, the remedy in this case must be one that the federal 
courts can administer, not one that will turn the District Court 
into a regulatory agency. Again, the RPFJ strikes the needed 
balance. The Technical Committee and the Compliance Officer that it 
would install are unquestionably intrusive, but at least the 
Committee would properly make its reports to the plaintiffs, who 
then would decide what course to pursue,
    By contrast, installing a Special Master with his own staff and 
the power both to investigate and to judge, as the Litigating States 
propose, would drag the federal courts into a prosecutorial and 
regulatory role that they are ill-suited to perform. The Litigating 
States' substantive proposals take a similar, regulatory approach. 
They would mandate product design and pricing, force Microsoft to 
distribute its competitors" products, and give Microsoft's 
rivals a mechanism to try to block any decision by Microsoft that 
they dislike.
    Finally, we believe that entry of the RPFJ will respect and 
promote the primacy of the U.S. Department of Justice in enforcing 
federal antitrust law. To be sure, the States may have some role to 
play in this area. But it would be bad policy to allow a small group 
of state attorneys general to trump, in effect, the Department's 
decision to settle on reasonable terms an antitrust case that has 
such enormous implications for the national economy.
    For all these reasons, we urge the District Court to enter the 
RPFJ as its final judgment in this case. We believe it would benefit 
consumers, effectively address the Court of Appeals' findings, and 
provide a workable resolution to this long-running litigation.
    Sincerely.
    Griffin B. Bill
    Edwin Meese III
    C. Boyden Gray



MTC-00030071

South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol,
500 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
House of Representatives
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    My pursuit in public service has been to make sure that 
taxpayers and justice are well served in all matters. In the 
settlement proposal affecting U.S. v. Microsoft, I am concerned that 
enough resources in time, money, attention and personnel have been 
used to pursue the issues raised in this anti-trust case.
    At no time in the proceedings has it been established that 
consumers have been wronged by Microsoft's actions. In fact, I think 
consumers who've used Microsoft have been well pleased with the 
quality and cost of the company's products and services. The issue 
seems to focus on Microsoft and its ambitious competitors, and I 
think this case has expended enough resources to determine what is 
fair. I strongly support putting the settlement into effect.
    I appreciate your attention to my statements.
    Sincerely
    Representative Bill Napoli
    Legislative District 35
    Assistant Majority Leader



MTC-00030072

South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol,
500 East Capitol,
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Senate Chamber
January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This letter is to be entered in the public input phase of the 
settlement in U.S. v. Microsoft. I support the settlement for the 
following reasons:
    . The settlement answers the issues which were found to be valid 
at the end of this 4-year-old case.
    . The settlement will conclude a case which has used sufficient 
time, personnel and money to seek out every possible issue and fully 
explore each one.
    . At no time during the past four years has it been established 
that consumers have been wronged by Microsoft's actions.
    . A significant benefit from this case to school districts which 
hold a disproportionate share of economically stressed children is 
the dedication of hardware, software and tech support to bridge the 
IT gap for these children.
    Frankly, the continuation of this case will not benefit justice 
or the information technologies industry. After more than four 
years, an antitrust case of this magnitude should have yielded all 
of the benefits that are reasonable.
    I appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter.
    Sincerely,
    Brock L. Greenfield
    State Senator
    Legislative District 6



MTC-00030073

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am a strong supporter of the use of information technologies 
as a major resource of developing the economy of South Dakota. 
Efforts achieved in the state's Wiring the Schools Program and long 
distance learning systems will reap huge dividends as the so-called 
digital divide is erased between urban America and rural states. The 
allocation of computers and backup support which is expected from 
the settlement proposal in the

[[Page 28814]]

antitrust case, U.S. v. Microsoft, offers another leap forward 
because those systems are targeted for use by low income school 
districts. South Dakota has many of those districts which should 
qualify for the computer systems. That is one reason I support the 
settlement.
    The other speaks to how the justice system is used to pursue 
justice. This antitrust case was established to explore Microsoft 
Corporation's practices as they relate to its competition. It has 
not established any harm to consumers, which should be a strong 
consideration in the value of this settlement. From what I have been 
able to read and understand, the settlement adequately addresses the 
issues which have remained viable throughout the court process. I 
think this case has reached the point when it is time to say enough 
is enough; it's no longer necessary to keep this court action going.
    I think justice has been pursued, and the pursuit has not 
wandered outside the lines of what is a proper action by the courts. 
My hope is that this process is not allowed to wander outside the 
lines by rejecting the settlement. Thank you.
    With best regards,
    Phil Hanson



MTC-00030074

January 28, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    My letter is being sent for the settlement phase in U.S. vs. 
Microsoft. I have followed the case in the news and I have wondered 
why so much money and attention has been consumed to pursue 
Microsoft on issues which could have been decided in much less time. 
Frankly, the case has the public appearance of Microsoft being 
punished for leading the competition with software which is more 
competent and less expensive for average users than Microsoft's 
competitors.
    Skepticism aside, I hope the settlement is enacted because this 
issue has had its day in court and because the issues which were 
believed to be important have been answered. I am very pleased that 
the U.S. Department of Justice reached an accord with Microsoft. The 
fact that such an accord was reached by the federal government and 
nine of the states involved in the action should weigh heavily in 
favor of allowing thin settlement to move toward enactment.
    Thank you for your attention to my letter.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Sauby



MTC-00030075

To: US Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
Title:
Company:
Fax 202-616-9937
Business
From:
Fax number:
Business phone:
Date & Time: 1/28/2002 5:46:28 PM
Pages sent: 12
Re: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached document
The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism
4901 Seminary Rd #1320
Alexandria, VA 22311-1830, USA
(703) 625-3296 (VOX)
(815) 327-8852
(FAX)
Internet: http://www.rnoraldefense.com E-mail: 
info @ moraldefense.com
10708 N Essex Court
Mequon, WI 53092
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was relieved last November when a settlement was finally 
proposed in the Microsoft antitrust case. I do not think Microsoft 
has done anything worthy of such harsh litigation, and I think that 
a settlement would, at this point, be the best thing that could 
happen in the case. To my dismay, however, Microsoft's competitors, 
who have been relentlessly pursuing the destruction of Microsoft 
from the beginning, are currently engaged in undermining the 
settlement and seeking further litigation against Microsoft. Ever 
since this case was brought to the federal courts, the economy has 
declined and the technology industry has suffered. The measures 
Microsoft's opponents want to pursue will ultimately de more harm 
than good, and I do not believe that the public should have to 
suffer simply because Microsoft's competitors want to make some 
money.
    Microsoft has been very generous in this suit. I think Bill 
Gates and his lawyers have shown a great deal of pragmatism in 
making so many unnecessary concessions. They have gone beyond what 
was required of them in the lawsuit, and have agreed to terms that 
restrict parts of their company that have not violated antitrust 
law,, The settlement appears to be very fair, and I can honestly see 
no good reason for additional litigation. Microsoft has agreed not 
to cater into any contract that would require a third party to sell 
Microsoft software at any fixed percentage. Microsoft has also 
agreed to change its Windows operating system so that it will 
support non-Microsoft software, and Microsoft's competitors will be 
able to introduce their own software directly into Windows.
    I believe it is time to let Microsoft gel back to business, and 
the only way to do that is to settle the case. The proposed 
settlement is sufficient to prevent future antitrust violations, and 
there is no need to continue federal action. I urge you to accept 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Chikalla
    cc: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.



MTC-00030076

WP Investments
January 24, 2002
Renata Heese
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
FAX: 202-616-9937
RE: Settlement of U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of this proposed settlement. I deeply 
appreciate the efforts of our government in pursuing antitrust 
activities and believe that this settlement is a positive 
development in this pursuit. As the former director of a state 
agency I know that the government and Microsoft lawyers have fought 
diligently in this important case. I would like to see the case 
resolved so that private industry can return to competing in the 
marketplace. The technology sector of our economy is looking for a 
signal to get moving again. The settlement of this case can provide 
the right signal that competition is alive and well through 
innovation and hard work and not continued litigation.
    Please know that t appreciate your consideration of my views on 
this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Pilley
    Partner
    729 S. Acadian Thruway
    Baton Rouge, LA 70806
    225-389-9429
    225-387-0309 (fax)



MTC-00030077

FAX
Date:   Monday, January 28, 2002
Pages including cover sheet: 2
To:
Phone
Fax Phone (202)6169937
From: James J. Ferraro
A&J Marketing Southeast In.
PO Box 150533
Altamonte Springs FL 32715
Phone +1(407)331-4960
Fax Phone +1(407)331-7137
NOTE: Microsoft Settlement.
??
P.O. Box 150533
Altamonte Springs, FL 32715-0533
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has been dealing with a hostile government for over 
three years now; it is time to put on end to the lawsuit. I am 
writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to accept the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. The critics are wrong when they 
claim that Microsoft is getting away with lenient terms. The 
settlement was arrived at after extensive negotiations under a 
court-appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend 
well beyond the products and procedures that were actually at issue 
in the suit, simply for the chance to put the issue behind it. 
Microsoft has given up the right to charge different computer makers 
different prices, thus losing leverage useful in getting its 
software promoted. It has also agreed to allow computer makers and 
users to remove access to Windows technologies,

[[Page 28815]]

features, and bundled applications, in favor of competing software. 
Microsoft has even committed competing software ?? works better with 
Windows.
    It is time that the government stops harassing Microsoft and 
allows free enterprise to re-emerge. The terms of the settlement are 
fair and the government needs to accept it. Please exercise your 
influence and authority to help make that happen.
    Sincerely,
    James Ferraro



MTC-00030079

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATE OF UTAH
REPRESENTATIVE JUDY ANN BUFFMIRE
35TH DISTRICT
(SALT LAKE COUNTY)
785 EAST 4255 SOUTH
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84107
HOME (801) 268-1862
STANDING COMMITTEES: EDUCATION; REVENUE AND TAXATION; RULES 
APPROPRIATIONS: PUBLIC EDUCATION
January 25, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    This letter will inform you of my opposition to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft lawsuit. Although we are from different 
political parties, I agree with the Utah Attorney General's reasons 
for opposing file proposed settlement--the State of Utah must 
defend laws that protect our consumers, protect free enterprise, and 
promote competition. It was determined by the trial court that 
Microsoft violated the antitrust laws of the United States. That 
decision has been reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and 
the United States Supreme Court has determined not to hear a further 
appeal by Microsoft. Microsoft has had ample opportunity to defend 
itself against charges that its actions thwarted competition in the 
market. These actions have had an adverse impact on Utah consumers, 
including some who are my constituents.
    Any settlement approved, or any remedy imposed, by the court 
must assure that Utah's consumers, including its businesses, are 
protected from Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I am informed 
that the proposed settlement allows Microsoft too much discretion in 
determining whether or not certain of the settlement provisions 
apply. Such provisions do not protect free enterprise or promote 
competition.
    Rather than adopting settlement provisions that might lead to 
future litigation, I recommend that hearings be conducted by the 
court to determine an appropriate remedy that will ensure fair 
competition into the future.
    Sincerely,
    Representative Judy Ann Buffmire
    Utah House District 35
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030080

111 NW First Street
Suite 910
Miami, FL 33128
(305) 375-4507
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    To protect the idea of free enterprise in this country, please 
make sure to confirm the proposed agreement with Microsoft 
Corporation. Microsoft has developed a great product, which tile 
public is satisfied with, so any further attempt to infringe on that 
could only damage our many years of progress in the PC industry.
    Under the review of a committee of software experts, these terms 
enable computer makers to re-configure Windows with their own 
preferred software offerings, and the ability to manipulate their 
supporting features, without reprisal from Microsoft. The top 20 
manufacturers will be able to operate without preference on terms 
and conditions to license the Windows operating system and any 
requirements to distribute or promote Microsoft technologies. Not 
only is the offer generous, but also some of the proposed measures 
even exceed the Justice Department demands in order to encourage 
swift approval of the deal.
    It's time to put the legal activities aside and complete this 
agreement at the earliest opportunity. There is no reason for 
further action against Microsoft, as the company should continue 
freely to develop the high-quality software that consumers want and 
businesses need. I look forward to your approval.
    Sincerely,
    Miguel Cordero



MTC-00030081

January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit. Little will be gained by continued litigation, especially 
in light of the vast concessions Microsoft has made. Contrary to 
assertions made by their competitors, Microsoft will not be getting 
off easy. The settlement agreement will impose numerous restrictions 
on the way Microsoft conducts its business. For instance, Microsoft 
will not enter into agreements obligating third parties to 
exclusively distribute Windows products. They have also agreed not 
enforce many of their intellectual property rights. Instead of 
calling for more litigation, Microsoft's competitors should be 
overjoyed by the changes that will be taking place in Microsoft's 
business practices. I tort hopeful the court will approve the 
settlement. The time has come for fine parties to move on, and to 
focus on other matters.
    Sincerely
    Michael Baldasare



MTC-00030083

January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    With as many people and small businesses that depend on 
Microsoft and their products on a daily basis, and considering how 
large an impact the company has on the U.S. economy and balance of 
trade, I cannot see how the Justice department thought it a good 
idea to attack Microsoft. It is like shooting ourselves in the foot 
to attack one of, if not the, top businesses in the world. That is 
why I was so pleased to hear that you had reached a settlement, This 
settlement will mean an end to this issue once and for all. It is 
harsh enough to satisfy Microsoft's competitors and yet will leave 
the company in one piece to continue innovating. I only hope that 
they will respect how much Microsoft is giving up by allowing full 
access to key components of its software. This will allow anyone to 
use it to enhance their products to better compete with Microsoft's, 
without retaliation from Microsoft.
    That, without all the other pans of the settlement, should be 
enough to satisfy Microsoft's critics. Microsoft has simply gone 
beyond what was expected of them in order to end this case. Let's 
let them move on and get back to business as usual. In my opinion, 
this will make a major part of ending our recession.
    Sincerely,
    Lee & June Johns
    645 Village Lane South
    Mandeville, LA 70471



MTC-00030084

PAUL C. THORUP
3148 Creek Road
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
IA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write this letter to express my concerns about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I am a 17-year old high school student working 
on a merit badge for my scouting activities. My parents own some 
stock in Microsoft, and I have discussed the issue with them to help 
me better understand the issues before making up my mind concerning 
what type of letter to mite. I am told that the Microsoft proposal 
is the result of court action in which Microsoft was found to be in 
violation of antitrust laws. I commend Microsoft for its ingenuity 
and creativity in bringing products to market, however, I believe 
Microsoft may have abused its market power to the

[[Page 28816]]

detriment of its market competitors and consumers.
    The courts have determined that Microsoft has violated antitrust 
laws. The only thing to determine is what should be done. My parents 
suggested to me that breaking-up Microsoft may not be in the best 
interest of its shareholders, however, from I have learned, the 
proposed settlement has many problems and may not prevent future 
violations. This would not be in the best interest of the 
shareholders either.
    Please hold hearings to decide what remedies should be imposed, 
and do not adopt the proposed settlement agreement.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Paul C. Thorup
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030086

MICHAEL SONNTAG
P.O. Box 675
Draper, UT 84020
January 25, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I am a concerned consumer who believes that the federal 
government is not looking out for my best interests in supporting 
the proposed settlement of the government commenced lawsuit against 
Microsoft.
    I have been concerned for a long time that Microsoft's actions 
were not in the best interest of consumers and that its practices 
were uncompetitive, designed more to monopolize than provide 
reliable products to the market. My concerns were realized when the 
Department of Justice was able to prove its antitrust case against 
Microsoft. Although the Court of Appeals determined that breaking 
Microsoft up would be too punitive, the Court did uphold the 
district court's findings that Microsoft violated antitrust laws.
    If breaking up Microsoft is too harsh of a remedy, then the 
proposed settlement is too lenient of a remedy. Some of the proposed 
settlement provisions do not go far enough and others are either not 
easily enforceable or are subject to conditions that would allow 
Microsoft to determine whether and how to comply. For instance, one 
of the driving issues of the lawsuit dealt with Microsoft's failure 
to share information with others to allow for the reasonable 
development of compatible software. The proposed settlement 
agreement would allow Microsoft to determine whether disclosure 
should be allowed, based upon Microsoft's determination that 
disclosure would harm Microsoft's security of software licensing.
    Settlement should be allowed only if past violations are cured 
and future violations are prevented. The current proposal, in my 
estimation, does neither and should be rejected.
    Your truely,
    Michael Sonntag
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030087

MIKE BROWNING
88 East Mutton Hollow Road
Kaysville, UT 84037
January 25, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I am a supporter of the free enterprise system and believe that 
government should generally allow businesses to operate and compete 
without government intervention. Nonetheless, I am informed that a 
settlement has been proposed in the Microsoft case that may not be 
in the best interest of average consumers like me.
    I understand that the original trial court held that Microsoft 
violated U.S. antitrust laws and that the Court of Appeals did not 
overturn that portion of the trial court's decision. If Microsoft 
has violated antitrust laws, they have hurt rather than promoted 
competition which is one of the most important aspects of a free 
enterprise system. This call not be good for the average consumer. 
If the proposed settlement does not resolve the antitrust 
violations, then Microsoft's conduct could continue into the future, 
therefore, I ask that you not accept the proposed settlement and 
take whatever action may be appropriate to properly protect the 
interests of consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Browning
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030088

POH
42 Quail Run Warren, NJ 07059
Telephone: 732-302-9608
Number of Pages (Including cover) 2
To: Attorney General Mr. John Ashcroft
From: Ann Poh
Company: US Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 
Fax Number: 1-202-307-1454 Phone Number:
Reply Requested: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Notes/Comments:
Letter attached. Thank you.
POH 42 Quayle Run
Warren, NJ 07059
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 opinion of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The lawsuits 
have been too long to date and need to be ended. I feel that 
Microsoft has been a victim of personal vendettas and greed and has 
gotten a raw deal even in temps of the recent settlement.
    The settlement is harsh and requires Microsoft to give up 
interfaces that are internal to their Windows products and design 
future Windows version so that computer makers, software developers, 
and consumers can more easily promote their own products. These 
concessions should be enough to appease all parties that are part of 
dispute so it amazes me that 9 states want to continue litigation. 
Please ignore this opposition for the sake of our IT sector and 
economy. Our nation needs your office to take a strong stance and 
uphold principles of free enterprise.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Poh



MTC-00030090

423 NW 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    This is to address the recent settlement between the Department 
of Justice and Microsoft. I want to give my support to this 
agreement. It has gone on far too long. I opposed the initial 
lawsuit. It was not warranted. Microsoft, through Bill Gates, has 
done nothing but benefit the consumer with his technology. I use 
Microsoft software programs, operating systems, everything, because 
they work better than the other programs on the market. If another 
firm were to put out a better product, I would use that one. The 
antitrust suit was nothing more than a bunch of crybabies getting 
together and trying to cripple the one firm they could not compete 
with, and the Department of Justice fell right into line. I know 
there is a great desire to break up Microsoft, but I cannot think of 
any thing worse for the industry or the country. AT&T was broken 
up; our phone system has gotten worse ever since. I get ten 
different bills, none of which I understand, and my phone service 
keeps increasing in price. When you need to call service, you are 
always switched somewhere else; no one takes responsibility. This is 
what would happen with Microsoft. Further, those who are rivals of 
Microsoft, and those who see any big business as evil, would sit 
gleefully on the side, cheering.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms that extend well beyond the 
products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit. 
Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to ship non-Microsoft 
product to a customer; Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows with a mechanism to make it easier to promote 
non-Microsoft software; Microsoft has agreed to document for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows"

[[Page 28817]]

operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement.
    Whatever "sins" Microsoft has committed, they have 
more than paid for. Give your support and approval to the agreement. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    E. Claudine Long
    CC: Senator Don Nickles



MTC-00030091

ERIC MECHAM
3274 East 7800
South Salt Lake City, UT 84121
January 27, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B, Hesse Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I understand you are receiving comments concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement, and I wish to be heard on the subject.
    I believe it was appropriate for the Department of Justice to 
bring the antitrust case against Microsoft concerning its anti-
competitive actions. It was long overdue. However, I am concerned 
that the case is being settled without imposing appropriate remedies 
against Microsoft. This is not the first case brought against 
Microsoft. Each time, the parties thought they had resolved their 
problems only to find that Microsoft had found a way around 
compliance with the settlement agreement. Therefore, settlement of 
those prior cases has not well-served the public interest in having 
Microsoft stop its anti-competitive behavior.
    Microsoft has proven that it can not be trusted to self-police, 
and the language of the proposed settlement agreement is not tight 
enough to prevent future violations of antitrust laws. Some of the 
agreement's provisions grant too much discretion to Microsoft to 
determine if and when they will comply with some of its provisions. 
If left to enforce the agreement itself, Microsoft find a way to 
interpret the agreement in its favor. This is only natural, however, 
it does not solve the problems that concerned the Department of 
Justice in the beginning.
    Microsoft has already been found to have violated federal 
antitrust laws. Break-up may be the only way to finally rein 
Microsoft in, however, whatever remedy is finally imposed, it must 
take into account past and the potential for future violations of 
the same laws. The proposed settlement does not do this. The 
proposed agreement does not prevent future anti-competitive actions 
against vendors, suppliers, retailers and competitors.
    I request that any settlement or court order be tightly worded 
to avoid any question as to Microsoft's obligation to comply.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Mecham
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030092

PATRICIA CHRISTELLO
Honorable 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 1.200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing with regard to the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v Microsoft. This 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to safeguard and bolster its 
monopoly, while also allowing Microsoft to use anticompetitive 
strategies to spread its dominance into other markets.
    The deal does not promote innovation in this vital sector of our 
economy. The enforcement provisions are vague and it seems there are 
many loopholes loft in the settlement. At a time when security is of 
vital importance to both our government and corporations it would 
seem eminently important that we do not curb the production of new 
products in an attempt to protect an illegal monopoly,
    Microsoft has been found liable before the District Court, they 
subsequently lost an appeal in a 7.0 decision to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia, have had their rehearing in 
the appellate court denied, and its appeal to the Supreme Court 
denied. It is time we rectify those inadequacies and promote the 
true nature of free markets to keep from hindering innovation in the 
marketplace.
    The court must find a solution that meets the appellate court's 
standards and avoid any future anticompetitive strategies.
    I appreciate you taking the time to consider this matter 
further.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Christello
    Business Manager



MTC-00030093

GREGORY M. D'AGOSTINO
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
US District Court, District of Columbia
C/O Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: US v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing with regard to the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft in US v Microsoft. I realize 
there has been much discussion over many years concerning this 
matter. In light of that, it seems a more equitable solution could 
have been reached. The specifics of this settlement appear to 
violate antitrust laws.
    As it stands now, Microsoft has the capacity to bolt financial 
services, cable or even the Internet to Windows hindering 
competition. In addition Microsoft makes the decision as to what 
technologies will be compatible with its Windows. This makes it very 
difficult for companies to develop software or for that matter find 
investors to provide venture capital for their companies. It is 
interesting to note that currently Microsoft Windows and Office 
Suites enjoy over a 90% user status. Expansion into other markets 
will expand that usage even more. At a time when computer technology 
companies should be challenged to address security and privacy 
issues in government and corporations, the inability to compete is. 
certainly not making it an environment good for growth. The 
settlement provides many loopholes, which could well keep the issue 
in litigation for years.
    The computer software market should be buttressing the economy 
rather than adding to its sluggishness. Without competition, venture 
capital and an expectation of success it is very likely this 
industry will continue its downward slope. It is interesting to look 
at the monopoly of Microsoft and note the growth in the company as 
compared to other companies who do not have the ability to control 
most aspects of the market. The affect on consumers will be 
reflected in the high cost of software.
    Given that nothing in the settlement hinders Microsoft, there 
should be little change in its business operation. It appears 
Microsoft plans to expand to financial, cable and the Internet, 
which will only serve to expand its control.
    Although Microsoft will be required to share technology if it is 
reasonably necessary it also will determine which companies' 
technologies will be compatible with Windows. Microsoft will appoint 
one member of the three-person technology committee, the Department 
of Justice appoints another and they must both agree on the third.
    It is likely companies will be reluctant to take on a Microsoft 
with a challenge, as their future business may well depend on their 
relationship with Microsoft. Given that Microsoft will be able to 
charge whatever it wants for its products, prices will skyrocket.
    It seems a more equitable solution could be determined, If I may 
be of any assistance, please contact me.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory M. D'Agostino
    Consultant
    CC: Attorney General Tom Reilly



MTC-00030094

    Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
    Dee L. Heugly
    heuglyd @ hro.com
    Attorneys at Law
    111 East Broadway
    Suite 1100
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    84111-5233
    Tel (801)521 5800
    Fax (801) 521-9639
    www.hro.com
    Salt Lake City
    Denver
    Boulder
    Colorado Springs
    London
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937

[[Page 28818]]

1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    Please add my name to the list of those who believe that the 
court should not adopt the proposed settlement in the Microsoft v. 
DOJ case.
    I firmly believe that markets should be open and free to 
competition. When adequate competition exists, consumers generally 
benefit. When competition does not exist, consumers are generally 
harmed to the benefit of one player controlling the market. The 
federal courts have already determined that Microsoft has so 
controlled the market that it is in violation of U.S. antitrust 
laws. Notwithstanding Microsoft's attempt to strike a better deal 
with the DOJ than it might receive from the court, the proposal 
falls short of the goal of remedying past conduct and preventing 
future anti-competitive acts in the future.
    Microsoft has proven to be a super-charged competitor in the 
market place and requires the special attention of the court to 
deter it from once again becoming too dominant in the market. Please 
reject the proposed settlement and conduct whatever hearings may be 
necessary to determine a proper remedy. Respectfully,
    Dee L. Heugly
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030095

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
Abigail L. Jones
(801)323 3265
slolebr @ bro.com
Attorneys at Law
111 East Broadway
Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, Utah
84111-5233
Tel (801) 521-5800
Fax (801) 521-9639
www.hro.com
Salt Lake City
Denver
Boulder
Colorado Springs
London
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write to express some concerns with the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft v. DOJ case. I am informed that the Microsoft case 
will be returning to the federal district court for the purpose of 
imposing a proper remedy. Appropriate sanctions and penalties in an 
antitrust suit generally require that the violator discontinue past 
anti-competitive conduct, provide a component to compensate for the 
damage caused by the past violations, and include conditions under 
which the violator can operate to prevent future violations. 
Although this can occur through settlement, it is appropriate for a 
court to have sufficient supervision over the settlement and 
approval of its provisions to ensure that future violations will not 
likely re-occur.
    I am informed that the proposed settlement does not go far 
enough to ensure that there will be an open and fair market place in 
the future. Microsoft can not be allowed to have too much discretion 
concerning release of its access codes, otherwise, competitors will 
not be able to develop compatible products and vendors will once 
again be required to market software packages according to 
Microsoft's direction, without competition.
    It is time to bring this litigation to an end and correct 
improper market conduct. It appears this will only occur if the 
court takes a strong hand to craft and be willing to enforce 
sanctions designed prevent past conduct from re-occurring. Please 
reject the proposed settlement and fashion your own remedy based 
upon the facts and law applicable to this case.
    Respectfully,
    Abby L. Jones
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030096

Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
Jennifer N. Byde bydej @ hro.com
Attorneys at Law
111 East Broadway
Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, Utah
84111-5233
Tel (801) 521-58oo
Fax (801) 521-9639
www.hro.com
Salt Lake City
Denver
Boulder
Colorado Springs
London
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoi.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 30%1454 or (202) 616-9937
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write to object to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft v. 
DOJ case.
    The federal district court determined that Microsoft has 
violated United States antitrust laws and the Court of Appeals 
reviewed and sustained that finding. The Court remanded the case to 
the district court for a determination of the appropriate remedy. At 
long last, the case can proceed and the Court may impose appropriate 
remedies for violations U.S. antitrust law. Although I personally 
find Microsoft's cavalier attitude towards antitrust laws troubling, 
and feel that the break-up may be appropriate under certain 
circumstances, I understand that the Court of Appeals has already 
determined that break-up is not an appropriate remedy. I further 
understand that the DOJ has agreed to a settlement of the matter on 
terms that I believe are wholly inadequate and partially 
unenforceable. Therefore, I ask that you not approve the settlement 
and hold your own hearings to determine and impose an appropriate 
remedy.
    Respectfully,
    Jenniffer Byde
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030097

DAVID & BRANDY STEWART
44 West Broadway, Suite # 803
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
January 26, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
FACSIMILE COPY TO:" (202) 307-1454 or (202) 
616-9937
1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I have been asked to share some of my feelings relative to the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft v. DOJ litigation.
    I am a CPA with a large accounting firm and consider myself as 
pro-business. I generally do not advocate government intrusion into 
the free market system and would prefer that the competitive market 
place correct any problems. Unfortunately, when one player is too 
dominant in the market place and aggressive in using its dominance, 
the competitive market place can not properly function. This appears 
to be the case with Microsoft. The federal trial court determined 
that Microsoft was in violation of U.S. antitrust law by virtue of 
some of its marketing and other practices. This portion of the 
court's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and was 
allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court. Whenever violations of 
antitrust laws are found to be present, reasonable measures must be 
taken to deter similar conduct in the future and to deal with the 
harm caused by past actions. From what I understand about the 
proposed Microsoft settlement, it does not contain reasonable, 
enforceable measures to accomplish this result. I am particularly 
concerned that Microsoft has too much discretion concerning its 
future compliance with some of the important provisions of the 
settlement agreement- those that would require sharing of source 
codes with competitors so that compatible products can

[[Page 28819]]

be developed. Without assurances that Microsoft will no longer 
engage in anti-competitive behavior, nothing will have been gained 
by the litigation, and the consumers will continue to be harmed 
thereby.
    A proper resolution to the case would entail the imposition of 
appropriate sanctions and conditions of operation. This can only be 
done by the court following hearings. Adoption of the proposed 
settlement will not protect the rights of consumers into the future.
    Respectfully,
    David Stewart
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030098

BECKY T. KINZEL
2654 E. Lincoln Lane
Salt Lake City, Utah 84124
January 25, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    My perspective on the proposed Microsoft settlement is somewhat 
unique. My family owns stock in Microsoft and is a consumer of its 
products. We purchased Microsoft stock several years ago because of 
its tremendous growth potential. Unfortunately, because of the 
Microsoft lawsuit and the national economy, our stock has not 
performed as well as we would have hoped. We believe that Microsoft 
will not reclaim its great growth potential until the government 
lawsuits are concluded and all hints of antitrust violations are 
silenced. Although we would welcome an end to the lawsuit through 
settlement, there is enough opposition and legitimate questions 
raised concerning the proposed settlement that litigation could be 
unnecessarily extended or result in additional lawsuits in the 
future as the various parties attempt to enforce or comply with the 
proposed settlement. A judicial resolution after reasoned argument 
before the court seems to offer a greater likelihood of economic 
stability and growth for Microsoft. This would be best for Microsoft 
shareholders. We are confident that Microsoft will meet any 
challenge and would continue to succeed in a more competitive 
marketplace.
    Therefore, I recommend that the court not adopt the proposed 
settlement, but impose reasonable, but not punitive sanctions 
against Microsoft based upon evidence presented at future hearings.
    Sincerely,
    Becky T. Kinzel
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030099

MICHAEL K. EVENS
24 Wanderwood Way
Sandy, UT 84092
January 26, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I generally believe in free market principles 
and the least amount of government intrusion into business practices 
and market competition, however, I am concerned that adoption of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement will not accomplish what is necessary 
to prevent future antitrust violations by Microsoft.
    Although the proposed settlement pays lip service to penitence 
for past behavior and contains provisions intended by the Justice 
Department to prevent future violations, the actual language appears 
to be so broad as to provide loop-holes to future compliance. Rather 
than engaging in another round of lawsuits five or ten years from 
now, the better course would be to impose a proper, enforceable 
remedy now. This will likely require hearings before the court, but 
further hearings now will benefit consumers in the long run if it 
prevents violations and further litigation in the future. Please do 
not adopt the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michael K. Evans
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030100

01/28/2002 16:05 FAX 8015219639
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLC
??001/002
ART PURCELL
5197 Spring Clover Drive
Murray, UT 84123
January 26, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I understand you are receiving comments concerning the proposed 
Microsoft settlement, and I have an opinion on the subject. The 
antitrust case brought by the Department of Justice is not the first 
case brought against Microsoft concerning its anti-competitive 
actions. Unfortunately, settlement of those prior cases has not 
well-served the public interest in having Microsoft stop its anti-
competitive behavior. Microsoft has a way of wriggling out of 
settlement language.
    The language of the proposed settlement agreement is not tight 
enough to prevent future violations of antitrust laws. Some of the 
agreement's provisions grant too much discretion to Microsoft to 
determine if and when they will comply with some of its provisions 
and fail to address the tactics of "fear, uncertainty and 
doubt" that Microsoft has used on competitors" customers 
to drive them into Microsoft's camp and to squash competitors.
    Microsoft has already been adjudged to have violated federal 
antitrust laws. Although break-up may be too harsh of a remedy, the 
remedy finally adopted by the court must consider past, as well the 
potential, for future violations of the same laws. The proposed 
settlement does not do this. It does not reduce Microsoft's power to 
impose anti-competitive conditions upon vendors, suppliers, 
retailers and competitors. Any settlement or court order must be 
tightly worded to avoid any question as to Microsoft's compliance 
obligations.
    Sincerely,
    Art Purcell
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030101

LOUISE ANDERSON
11102 9TH AVE CT S
TACOMA, WA 98444
253-474-9421
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust case settling. Three 
years of litigation is enough. In my opinion, this lawsuit should 
never have been filed against Microsoft. Despite this belief, I 
would like to see the Court approve the settlement agreement that 
the parties worked hard to negotiate. Any threat of future anti-
competitive behavior should be dispelled by the terms of the 
settlement agreement. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
those who promote or distribute programs that compete with Windows. 
They also agreed to a uniform price list for the largest computer 
manufacturers. Beyond the terms of the settlement agreement, nothing 
further should be required of Microsoft. Little will be gained by 
continuing to litigate this case. i applaud your efforts to resolve 
the lawsuit.
    I've enclosed my address and phone number, in the event that you 
would like to contact me.
    Respectfully.
    Louise Anderson
    INC. RV MTRS. SIDE SOUTH : FROM



MTC-00030103

406 Gerald Street
State College, PA 16801
January 11, 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 disagreement with the lawsuit that 
was brought against

[[Page 28820]]

Microsoft by the federal government. While the antitrust case has 
been dragged out way too long, I am glad to see that a settlement 
has finally occurred.
    The concessions seem fair and reasonable and I am confident that 
they would probably have occurred anyway without the government's 
interaction, because I believe the government should stay out of 
free enterprise's business and let them weed out their own problems. 
Under the terms of the settlement there will be increased relations 
with computer makers and software developers which is a good thing 
for the IT industry. There will also be a three-person committee to 
monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. These represent 
to concessions that show Microsoft is looking out for the best 
interests of the public and themselves.
    The question is whether or not the government is looking out for 
our best interests. The nine states holding out seem to be 
grandstanding their own political agendas instead of trying to help 
our ailing IT sector. I urge your office to help quell the 
opposition. IT is time for this matter to end.
    Sincerely,
    John Davis
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030104

FROM:
FAX NO. :
Sep. 10 2001 06:33AM P1
Richard Gardner
11 Carpenter Lane
Newburg, PA 17240-9219
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very happy to hear the Department of Justice has reached a 
settlement. I firmly believe that this settlement is in the best 
interests of the state, the IT industry, and the economy. Microsoft 
opponents would like us to believe that Microsoft has gotten off 
easy in this settlement, but this is not the case. Microsoft has 
been made to endure three long years of litigation in order to 
arrive at the terms of this settlement. The terms of the settlement, 
in my opinion, are fair and reasonable, and, if adhered to, will do 
much benefit consumers and avoid future anti-competive behavior.
    Microsoft has already proven its willingness to comply with the 
terms of the settlement. They have agreed to establish a uniform 
pricelist, grant intellectual property licensure to third parties, 
the establishment of a three person Technical Committee consisting 
of software engineering experts to help with dispute resolution.
    With the current recession and its devastating effects on the 
state and federal budget, is very important that the technology 
industry be allowed to concentrate on business now rather than being 
distracted by a suit of this magnitude. The public appreciates your 
efforts to resolve this as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030105

January 28 20 02:57p
[206] 722-5078
202.307.1455
3450 Cascadia Ave. S.
Seattle, WA 98144
206.722.5078
dwburroughs @ attbi.com
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
agreement. As someone who works in the technology industry, I see 
the benefits of the parties settling this case. Protracted 
litigation is not in anyone's best interest.
    The settlement agreement will mean many changes will be made to 
the way Microsoft conducts its business. These changes appropriately 
deal with the concerns raised about anticompetitive behavior on 
Microsoft's part. By way of example, the settlement agreement will 
require Microsoft to establish a uniform price list. Microsoft will 
license Windows to the 20 largest computer makers at the same price. 
Additionally, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into contracts with 
third parties that would require that party to exclusively 
distribute Windows. These types of changes in Microsoft's business 
practices will help restore fair competition. I urge the Department 
of Justice to continue working toward a prompt resolution of this 
case.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    David Burroughs



MTC-00030106

Karl Spielman
2609 N. W. Marker St
Seattle, WA 98107
(206) 365-2564 home
(206) 365-5049 fax
(435) 260-1383 cell
email: 2kadspieiman @ hcme.com
Utah Back County Pilots
Resource Access
Skypark Airport
Officer
1887 S. Redwood. Box 16
Woods Cross, Utan 8408/
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft.
    For the past three years, the Microsoft antitrust suit has 
lingered in the federal courts. Six months ago, round-the-clock, 
mediated negotiations began, and last November, a settlement was 
proposed. That settlement is pending approval, and next week, it 
will be determined whether or not the terms are satisfactory. I 
believe they are, Fully half of the plaintiff states in the case do 
not agree and are actively seeking to undermine the settlement on, 
the federal level and extend litigation against Microsoft.
    The settlement is not only just it is fair. There is no reason 
to continue litigation. .Microsoft has even agreed to terms that 
extend to policies and technology that were not declared unlawful by 
the federal court of appeals. All of the conditions in the 
settlement are aimed at restoring a fair competitive atmosphere 
within the technology market and preventing further antitrust 
violations on Microsoft's part. For example, Microsoft will refrain 
in future from taking retaliatory action when software developers or 
computer makers introduce a product into the market that directly 
competes with Microsoft technology Microsoft has also agreed to 
reformat future versions of Windows to support non-Microsoft 
software, and furnish third parties acting under the terms of thc 
agreement with a license to pertinent intellectual property rights 
to prevent infringement. I do not believe that additional action is 
necessary on the federal level. The settlement addresses the 
concerns both of the defendant and the plaintiffs, and further 
li??gation will not only be red??, it will also ?? ??tting and 
costly. It is time to move on. I urge you to support the 
finalization of the settlen??
    Sincerely,
    Karl Spielman



MTC-00030108

Facsimile Transmittal Sheet
Fax Date 1/28/02
To: ??orney General John Ash??
Fax #: 1 202 307 1 454
From: Jerri P??wson
Subject: microsoft antitrust CAST
Total Pages: 2
2045 SW Leewood Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97006
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I fully support the settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. 
The litigation has dragged on for long enough. The resources of both 
the government and Microsoft alike would be better spent pursuing 
other matters.
    The settlement agreement's terms are reasonable. Once the 
settlement is finalized, there will be no grounds for any further 
complaints on the part of Microsoft's competitors. They will be 
getting Microsoft's internal operating system information, and will 
basically be free to infringe upon Microsoft's intellectual property 
rights. Microsoft is essentially giving up many of its rights in the 
interest of settling this case.
    With these types of concessions, I see no reason for any further 
action at the federal level against Microsoft. Your efforts toward 
putting this case to rest are greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Jerri Pawson



MTC-00030109

FAX
STONER CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE
515 South Broad Street
Lititz, PA 17543
Phone (717)626-2051 Fax (717)626-7398
E-mail ipaulstoer @ dejazzed.com
To: Attorney ?? ?? ??
From: I Paul Stoner, DC
Dale: 1-27-02
#Pages: 1

[[Page 28821]]

(excluding ??)
I Paul Stoner
515 South Broad Street
Lititz, PA 17543
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The federal government's actions in its case against Microsoft 
have been truly disappointing and inappropriate. The fact that many 
states have yet to settle simply illustrates the point that their 
interests do not lie seeking justice but rather seeking their piece 
of the pie. We have seen other examples of this miscarriage of 
justice in our government before, never one so blatantly frivolous 
and inappropriate.
    For that reason, the settlement that was reached in this case 
last November should be implemented immediately and the issue should 
immediately cease to exist. Settlement is more than adequate to 
accomplish the stated goals of the government's suit. In fact 
Microsoft has accepted restrictions and obligations pertaining to 
products and practices that were not even issue at the lawsuit. 
Therefore no further actions need to be implemented against 
Microsoft. For the benefit of all involved in this case, and indeed 
the entire country, it is my firm belief that this issue be resolved 
immediately. This can only be accomplished if the current settlement 
is implemented without further delay.
    Cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030110

STEVE HALLMARK
7929 South DaVinci Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
January 27, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 30%I454 or (202) 616-9937
1ST CLASS MAIL TO:
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I write because of some concerns I have about the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. While I am not advocating that Microsoft be 
broken-up into parts as an appropriate remedy for its antitrust 
violations, I am concerned that the proposed settlement will not 
accomplish what it is intended to do, e.g. create a competitive 
market place, benefit consumers, and rectify past conduct.
    I am informed that the proposed settlement is too lenient on 
Microsoft and may place to much discretion in Microsoft's hands in 
whether and how to comply with the agreement. Such an agreement will 
not create of competitive market place or be of long-term benefit to 
consumers. I would be more comfortable if the court were to conduct 
hearings during which the parties in interest can voice their 
concerns and offer evidence and legal precedence. The court can then 
impose an appropriate remedy that will ensure compliance into the 
future.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Steve Hallmark
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030111

FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: January 28, 2002
TO: JOHN ASHCR?? (202)--307--1454 US ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: T. Clifford Smith
PHONE: 513-385-8577
FAX: 513-385-4491
Number of pages including cover sheet: 2
Comments: ??
T. Clifford Smith
6480 Dry Ridge Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45252-1748
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my opinion that the antitrust suit against Microsoft 
should never have existed in the first place. However, since it did, 
I am glad to see that there has been a settlement to the case. It 
took over three years for the Justice Department to finally settle 
the case with Microsoft, and I fully support that settlement.
    As I'm sure you're aware Microsoft has never harmed anyone; 
instead it was a large part of the reason for the success of the 
economy in the 1990's that has been unrivaled throughout history. 
Thousands upon thousands of people who are employed owe their jobs 
to Microsoft, as do students who are attending college under 
scholarships that Microsoft created. Let us not forget all of the 
charities that Microsoft has donated millions of dollars to.
    Microsoft has agreed to several changes in the way they conduct 
their business that will promote greater competition to Microsoft 
software programs. Microsoft agreed to make it easier for computer 
makers, software developers and consumers to reconfigure Windows at 
any time. Since Microsoft has agreed to such significant demands, 
its competitors should look favorably on this settlement.
    The antitrust suit against Microsoft should never have been 
brought in the first place, but since it was, I am happy to see that 
a settlement has been reached.
    Sincerely yours,
    T. Clifford Smith



MTC-00030112

Advanced Custom Software Development
Microsoft certified Partner
January 28,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen, I felt compelled to voice my support of 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement. This settlement is designed to 
be fair and reasonable to both sides, ensuring compensation to 
Microsoft competitors and giving consumers more choices.
    This settlement will be beneficial to both the IT industry and 
the consumers alike. Among other things in the settlement, Microsoft 
has agreed to the establishment of a three-person "Technical 
Committee" to monitor its conformity to the agreement and 
assist with dispute resolution. Microsoft has also agreed not to 
retaliate against computer-makers that may ship software that 
competes with the Windows Operating System.
    This settlement was reached after three years of court battles. 
It is mandatory that this agreement be finalized. The whole escapade 
has been an excessive abuse of our tax dollars. Thank you for your 
work on this case, and as attorney general.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Bausbacher
    President
    1755 N. Collins Blvd., Suite 300
    Richardson, Texas 75080
    (972) 644-9763
    Fax (972) 644-2846
    www. ProtoLiak.com



MTC-00030113

Fax Cover Sheet
122 E Clay Ave
W Hazleton, PA 18202
570-459-6777
Send to: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Carolyn A
Mar??enssen
Attention:
Date: 1/28/02 
Office Location: Washington, DC
Office Location: W Hazleton, PA
Fax Number: 202-307-1454
Phone Number:
570-459-6777
Total pages, including cover: 2
Comments:
Carolyn Martienssen
122 E. Clay Avenue
West Hazleton, PA 18202-3834
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 in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The antitrust case has 
gone on for too long and is not fully justified. Not only has 
Microsoft created jobs and wealth for our nation, but also it has 
made technological breakthroughs that have standardized the IT 
industry. I have never felt my rights as a consumer have been 
infringed upon.
    In fact, making Microsoft give away interfaces that are internal 
to their Windows operating system products is a violation of their 
intellectual property rights. Microsoft has worked long and hard to 
develop those products that outdo all their competitors. As bad as 
the settlement is however, it is better than further litigation. 
Implement the settlement as soon as possible. It is in the best 
interest of the American public if you finalize this dispute. Thank 
you.

[[Page 28822]]

    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Martienssen
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030114

Fax Cover Sheet
122 E Clay Ave
W Hazleton, PA 18202
570-459-6777
Send to: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Carolyn Martienssen
Attention:
Date: 1/28/02 
Office Location: Washington, DC
Office Location: W Hazleton, PA
Fax Number: 202-307-1454
Phone Number: 570-459-6777
Total pages, including cover: 2
Comments:
Carolyn Martienssen 122 E. Clay Avenue
West Hazleton, PA 18202-3834
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 in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The antitrust case has 
gone on for too long and is not fully justified. Not only has 
Microsoft created jobs and wealth for our nation, but also it has 
made technological breakthroughs that have standardized the IT 
industry. I have never felt my fights as a consumer have been 
infringed upon.
    In fact, making Microsoft give away interfaces that are internal 
to their Windows operating system products is a violation of their 
intellectual property rights. Microsoft has worked long and hard to 
develop those products that outdo all their competitors. As bad as 
the settlement is however, it is better than further litigation. 
Implement the settlement as soon as possible. It is in the best 
interest of the American public if you finalize this dispute. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Martienssen cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030115

Fax
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: William Liu
Fax: 2V2-307-1454
Pages: 2
FAX 2:
Date: 1/28/2002 
Re: Microsoft Settlement
 Comments:
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Attached is my opinion on the recent settlement proposed by 
Microsoft. Please review for your references. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    William Liu
    Microlink Enterprise, Inc.
    13731 E. Proctor Ave.
    City of Industry, CA 91746
    Phone:626-330-9599 x 114
    Fax: 626-330-4095
MICROLINK
ENTERPRISE INC.
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, USDOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft's opponents should be satisfied with the settlement 
that was reached last November between it and the federal government 
because it is fair and reasonable. In fact, it goes above and beyond 
the scope of the claims of lawsuit, which should make them content. 
Unfortunately, it appears that certain of Microsoft's adversaries 
are unsatisfied with the settlement and will probably never be until 
Microsoft is broken up by the government, which is a step that would 
not resolve any issues the Microsoft adversaries state as problems, 
and undermine the original intent of the antitrust laws, which is to 
protect the consumers.
    Reasonable people recognize that the settlement is fair. It 
addresses all of the complaints of Microsoft's adversaries. For 
example, one of the main complaints was that Microsoft did not allow 
computer makers to offer any non-Microsoft software without fear of 
retaliation. In the settlement, Microsoft agreed to not retaliate 
against computer makers if they choose to ship software that 
competes with anything Microsoft develops. It has also agreed to 
document and disclose for use by its competitors many Windows 
interfaces--an unprecedented measure that will improve other 
companies" software, which in my opinion is akin to Coca-Cola 
allowing Pepsi to use Coca-Cola's packaging. Lastly, Microsoft has 
agreed not to enter into any agreements obligating any third party 
to distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively. There 
are several more components to the settlement but these are the most 
profound, in my estimation.
    I sincerely hope the settlement is implemented. Too many 
technology companies have been sitting on the sidelines wondering 
about the effect of this trial, and it is time to get this ordeal 
behind us so the technology industry can get back to innovating 
instead of pondering the future of one of the pioneering agencies. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    William Liu
    O/Administrative Coordinator
    13731 E. Proctor Avenue,
    City of Industry, CA 91746
    Phone: (626)330-9599
    Fax (626) 330-8399
    * www.microlinkinc.com



MTC-00030116

TechWorld Computer Services + Training, LLC
1231 Perry Hill Road Ste. B
Montgomery, AL 36109
334-396-1762
334-396-1764-FAX
www.techworldtraining.com
Facsimile transmittal:
To: ??
Fax: (202) 307-1454
From: ??
Date:1/28/02
Re:
Pages: 2
CC:
Notes:
TechWorld Computer Services Training
1231 Perry Hill ??
?? 36109-5208
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to inform you that I believe that the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department is beneficial 
to the economy. If litigation continues, the effect on the economy 
and the industry will be far more detrimental than it has been. When 
issues like this come about, consumer confidence drops, thus 
affecting the industry. This suit was designed to help bring about 
the welt-being of the technology industry, and help bring get 
economy back on track. The settlement guides Microsoft to design all 
future versions of Windows to be compatible with non-Microsoft 
products. Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a three-
person "Technical Committee" that will monitor its 
compliance to the agreement.
    It is vital that all action that the federal government is 
taking regarding this case be stopped. The taxpayers do not have the 
resources to have this case carry on any longer. I urge you to 
finalize this settlement and allow Microsoft to return to leading 
industry.
    Sincerely,
    Angela Davis President



MTC-00030117

To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Company:
From: Son Integration, Inc.
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
930 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is sad commentary to have the antitrust suit against 
Microsoft reach the level it has in the government. The suit sends 
the wrong message that free enterprise is threatened in the United 
States. I would agree that Microsoft has not always been on the 
straight and narrow, but I think it is fair to build a company and 
have people choose to become dependant on your products. 
Furthermore, I believe that denying the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice will have an adverse effect 
on the economy.
    The current settlement process appears to be stifling the free 
market, but l believe it is necessary to settle the case as soon as 
possible to help the economy and industry move forward. Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers that may ship 
software that would compete with its Windows operating system. 
Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a technical 
committee, which will monitor its compliance to the settlement. I 
view this suit as an attack on democracy and a hindrance of the 
capitalist ethic. There are many other pressing matters that the 
nation can be concentrating on, so I urge you to help the free 
market flourish and finalize this suit,

[[Page 28823]]

    Sincerely,
    Greg Steirer President



MTC-00030118

ROB WALKER
5572 South Red Cliff Dr., #D
Salt Lake City, UT 84123
January 28, 2002
SENT VIA:
E-MAIL TO: Microsoft.atr @ usdoj.gov
VIA FACSIMILE COPY TO: (202) 307-1454 or (202) 616-9937
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotally
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion concerning 
the proposed Microsoft settlement. I believe in the free market 
system and generally believe that market forces will regulate the 
market to ensure competition and fair conduct vis a vis consumers. 
Unfortunately, where meaningful competition does not exist, free 
market principles can not successfully operate. This is the case in 
the Microsoft litigation with the Department of Justice where 
Microsoft was determined to be in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. 
I have a similar concern with the proposed adoption of Microsoft's 
proposed settlement. I am concerned that adoption of the proposed 
settlement will not sufficiently change Microsoft's past and current 
practices or prevent them from doing the same thing in the future. 
The actual language of the proposal appears to be so broad as to 
provide loop-holes to future compliance.
    Rather than engaging in another round of lawsuits five or ten 
years from now, the better course would be to impose a proper, 
enforceable remedy now. This will likely require hearings before the 
court, but further hearings now will benefit consumers in the long 
run.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Walker
    cc: The Honorable Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General



MTC-00030119

Mr. and Mrs. Paul Cobb
Butternut Court
Metamora. ?? 81548
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are of the belief that Microsoft has been unfairly penalized 
for its outstanding success. Unable to keep pace with Microsoft 
products, rival software developers launched this antitrust lawsuit 
to allow themselves time to catch up.
    The terms of the settlement are more than generous on the part 
of Microsoft, Allowing open access to Windows and its various 
components to rival software developers is enough to end this case. 
Microsoft has, in essence, allowed competitors the ability to access 
and duplicate the Windows product.
    This antitrust suit needs to be concluded now. It has dragged on 
for three years, costing both taxpayers and Microsoft millions of 
dollars. The Justice Department should settle this case.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul and Theresa Cobb



MTC-00030120

Raymond Brown
4102 Canterbury, Way
Temple Hills, MD 20748-3409
Ft Pierce, FL 34982
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 express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November, and I want to see a permanent resolution to 
this dispute.
    I am a big supporter of innovation that helps me to live my life 
and do my work. Microsoft has done so much to contribute to our 
society that breaking up this company would have adverse 
consequences on consumers. Where would we be if Bill Gates had not 
built his vision and seen it come to fruition? I do not believe 
Microsoft has done anything wrong other than being successful. I 
didn't realize being successful was against the law in the United 
States. But clever people like me who talk loudly in restaurants, 
see this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea for justice in a 
mechanized society.
    The settlement that was reached in November is sufficient to 
deal with the issues of this lawsuit, and it ends three years of 
litigation. Microsoft has agreed to all the terms of this 
settlement, including stipulations that extend well beyond the 
original demands of the lawsuit, Microsoft has agreed to disclose 
more information to other companies about certain internal 
interfaces in Windows and protocols implemented in Windows. 
Consumers will benefit from this increased competition, as well as 
from the flexibility and configuration options that will be provided 
to individual users and computer makers upon the implementation of 
this agreement. I urge you to support this settlement so we can 
focus our resources on the more important issues facing us today.
    Ecce homo ergo elk. La Fontaine knew his sister, and knew her 
bloody well. But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, 
there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight. on weight.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Brown



MTC-00030121

Lucy J. Pullen
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing in regards to the anticipated settlement with the 
Microsoft Corporation. This proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also fleeing Microsoft to 
use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets. After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation 
against Microsoft, it seems a more equitable solution can be 
reached.
    The deal fails to meet the appellate court's remedy standards, 
which are clearly laid out by the appellate court. The following are 
some examples of how the deal fails to meet the standards:
    1. The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found 
to be illegal by the appellate court, such as the finding that 
Microsoft's practice of bolting applications to Windows through the 
practice of "commingling code" was a violation of 
antitrust law. This was considered by many to be among the most 
significant violations of the law, but the settlement does not 
mention it.
    2. The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding,
    3 The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors and to take the intellectual property of 
competitors doing business with Microsoft.
    4. The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and 
instead guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed 
to expand into new markets. The settlement is also fiddled with 
loopholes making the enforceability of the settlement questionable. 
83 School St. Belmont Massachusetts ?? Phone: 
617-489-3890
    The agreement requires Microsoft to share technical information 
with competitors so that non-Microsoft software will work on Windows 
operating systems. However, Microsoft is not required to do so if it 
may harm the security or software licensing. The determiner of this 
harm? Microsoft. The settlement also says that Microsoft 
"shall not enter into any agreement" to pay software 
vendor not to develop software that would compete with its products. 
However, another provision permits those payments and deals when 
they are "reasonably necessary." Again who determines 
this "reasonably necessary?" Microsoft. The enforcement 
provisions in the settlement are weak and leave Microsoft virtually 
unaccountable.
    Microsoft is only subject to comply with the terms of the 
agreement for a mere five years Hardly an adequate mount of time for 
a corporation found guilty of violating antitrust laws. The three-
person committee that is being assembled to identify violations of 
the agreement will have nearly no effect since the work of the 
committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. The proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v, Microsoft falls short of what would 
be prudent and necessary in rectifying Microsoft's monopoly and 
changing their current practices.

[[Page 28824]]

    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Luck J. Pullen
    Exchange Consultant



MTC-00030122

MONY Life Insurance Company
950 Winter Street
Suite 3310
Waltham, MA 02451
www.mony.com
781 890 7830
781 89O 4212 Fax
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530,0001
RE: U.S. v Microsoft
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice seems inadequate in resolving Microsoft's monopoly of the 
market The settlement may serve to promote further monopolies for 
Microsoft in web services and other related products. This 
settlement does not sufficiently protect competitors against 
predatory pricing and does not protect consumer choice. The 
unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia against Microsoft should warrant a strong remedy and this 
settlement does not meet those standards. Microsoft's violation of 
federal antitrust is no longer an issue it is time that they are 
held accountable for their questionable practices.
    It is dine that we find a remedy that meets the appellate 
court's standard to "terminate the monopoly, deny Microsoft 
the fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity." This proposed settlement fails to 
do so. The settlement says that Microsoft "shall not enter 
into any agreement" to pay a software vendor not to develop or 
distribute software that would compete with Microsoft's products. 
However another provision permits those payments and deals when they 
are "reasonably necessary." The ultimate arbiter of when 
these deals would be "reasonably necessary?" Microsoft.
    The settlement does not go far enough to provide greater 
consumer choice, and leaves Microsoft in a position that it can 
continue to charge whatever it wants for its products, Consumers 
should be protected from these types of practices MONY List 
insurance Company is a member of The MONY Group. Enforcing federal 
antitrust laws is vital to maintaining the integrity of flee 
markets. It is important that we continue to enforce them to protect 
the welfare of consumers and the fundamentals that contribute to 
what makes our country's industries great. I appreciate you taking 
your time to examine this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    CC: Honorable Tom Reilly, Attorney General Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts



MTC-00030123

4837 Summer Street
Erie, Pennsylvania 16509
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. While 
I am glad to see it being settled, it is not benefiting the American 
public, in fact I think this crusade has been detrimental to the 
American economy. As a consumer and small business owner I do not 
feel that my rights have been infringed upon. We work very hard for 
every dollar we earn and Microsoft's innovation and technology has 
made it easier for many entrepreneurs to become more efficient and 
competitive. As soon as litigation began the tech market began to 
sour. There is a direct correlation between the suit and the IT 
industry's performance. Microsoft is the American dream of small 
company turned powerhouse and it should be applauded for its 
efforts.
    I want t??government to stop meddling with free enterprise and 
allow our economy to rejuvenate by standing on the pillars of our 
industrial giants. Let their success guide our economy's future.
    Sincerely,
    John and JoAnn Hornaman
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00030124

24 Oyster Row
Isle of Palms, SC 29451
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 you today to express my support of Microsoft and 
of the settlement. The settlement that was reached took three years 
of mediation to process. I believe the terms of the settlement are 
very. fair and will benefit the technology sector. Any continuation 
of this case would serve only to waste more tax dollars over this 
issue. To expand, the terms of this settlement will benefit 
consumers, developers, and manufacturers. Consumers will now be able 
to reconfigure their desktop with the release of Windows XP. 
Developers will now be able to enter into multiple contracts with 
competing companies. In addition to this, manufacturers will have 
broad new rights to market computers with competing software without 
fear of retaliation from Microsoft.
    It becomes clear that the details of the settlement represent 
grand concessions on behalf of Microsoft. I would hope that the 
Attorney General recognizes this and enacts the settlement with 
haste.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Calvin



MTC-00030125

PATRICIA C. RUSSELL
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Attorney General John Ashcroft
FROM: Patricia C. Russell
FAX NUMBER: 1-202-307-1454
DATE: 1/28/02
CC: Senator Strom Thurmond
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 2
PHONE NUMBER: 1-202-224-1300
SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER:
RE: Microsoft Settlement
YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:
NOTES/COMMENTS:
    Thanks for your consideration of the attached letter. Patricia 
C. Russell
115 SHALLOW BROOK DRIVE
COLUMBIA SC 2923
THELADYGOLFER @ SR.RR.COM
Jan 28 02 07:28 p Patty Russell
Patricia C. Russell
115 Shallow Brook Drive
Columbia, SC 29223-8109
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    After three grueling years, Microsoft and the Justice Department 
have reached a settlement in the antitrust case. Both sides worked 
hard and spent millions to reach this settlement. I write to you to 
ask you see this settlement through to the end.
    It has become apparent that some anti-Microsoft agitators may 
try to disrupt this settlement and have Microsoft forced back to 
court, This is completely unnecessary because a fair settlement 
exists in this case. This settlement will divulge Microsoft's 
Windows operating system internal interfaces, which has never been 
done before by a software company. Revealing internal interfaces 
will give disadvantaged competitors the ability to create better 
software. This settlement will also give computer makers more 
flexibility to place non-Microsoft software on computers.
    It is obvious that the time for this case to come to a close has 
come. Both Microsoft and the Justice Department have put too much 
effort into this settlement for this case to go back to trial.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Russell
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030126

Dan Lucky
2455 S Ponte Vedra Boulevard
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082
904-827-0098
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing on the occasion of the Justice Department's public 
comment period on the Microsoft settlement. As an objective member 
of the technology industry with 35 years of experience, working with 
a competitive platform vendor (IBM) to the Windows operating system, 
it seems that this case developed as a naive attempt of politicians 
to placate the complaints of businesses (Sun, Oracle, Apple, etc.) 
in their districts that have failed to gain their desired market 
share in the software industry. The ensuing attempt

[[Page 28825]]

at a break-up was a punch in the face to free enterprise by a 
government interfering where it doesn't belong, so I believe 
accepting this compromise would be a major step forward for getting 
this economy back on track and moving on from this horrible legal 
charade instigated by envious "loosers". I have seen 
this "looser" attitude over and over in this industry. 
Microsoft has set a standard that most competitors don't like to 
compete against.
    Though their rivals have mostly been victims of bad marketing 
strategies and/or mediocre products, Microsoft is planning to take 
several steps to level the playing field further. I believe they 
will offer the top 20 computer manufacturers with equal pricing for 
licenses of the Windows operating system without adding any 
restrictions on the distribution or promotion of competitive 
products, while allowing broad capabilities to arrange its platform 
with a custom combination of Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. 
They will also provide disclosure of their internal interfaces and 
server protocols to assist software developers in the design 
process.
    As you can see with the above examples, Microsoft is making 
serious efforts to appease the rest of the marketplace. This is a 
company that has helped move our economy forward by helping hundreds 
of millions of consumers join the information age, and that should 
be respected with a measured judgment. Any further action would be 
unwarranted and more costly and difficult to implement, so please 
proceed with this very fair solution. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Lucky



MTC-00030127

ROBERT W. ANDERSON, Consultant
CORPORATE TRAVFI MANAGEMENT
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-00'01
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    Isn't it time we begin to focus on issues other than those 
raised by competitors of one company, Microsoft, which is 
universally recoginized for major technological advancements0 
Microsoft has been harassed by the likes of Oracle and Sun 
Microsystems over an extended period of time, strictly in their 
interests
    What do the nine states pressing their investigation of 
Microsystems have as their incentive? It seems strictly political to 
me and. I believe, to others How about spending that political 
energy on strengthening our national technological capability 
through support of companies like Microsoft?
    Respect??ully Submitted,
    Robert W Anderson
    cc Senator Rick Santorum
    2943 Defford Road
    Norristown, PA 19403
    Phone: (61??)* ??



MTC-00030128

22419 Spring Creek Road
Washington, IL 61571
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington. DC 20530
    Door Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have a lot of respect for Microsoft and personally feel there 
should have never been o lawsuit. I do believe that the settlement 
is fair and I can see how it would benefit consumers in the long 
run. My concern is for the threat of additional litigation. How 
would this impact the future of Microsoft and the economy?
    Microsoft did not get off easily. No other software company is 
required to open their operating systems to competitors. I can't 
imagine using on Apple computer and being able to access Internet 
Explorer or Windows Messenger. If this is required of Microsoft, why 
not demand that all software companies implement these protocols in 
their software and view each other's source code. Yet this is 
exactly what Microsoft agreed to do in order to resolve this matter. 
Isn't that enough?
    Let's end this. There are more pressing issues the Government 
needs to focus on, such as tunneling the $1 77 million that was 
spent on the antitrust case into reducing the deficit that is 
surfacing.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Moore



MTC-00030129

Curtis E. Granberry
Two Catclaw Mountain Road
P. O. Box 236
ConCan, Texas 78838
Ph. 830-232-5731
Fax 830-232-5668
January 28, 2002
FAXED TO 1-202-307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intent of these comments is to encourage the Department of 
Justice to accept the previously negotiated Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I have used Microsoft products for the past 20 years. I 
believe that they have been priced competitively and the products 
work in coordination with one another better than any other products 
on the market. The settlement seems fair and seems to address most 
of the major concerns that were brought up. The technology industry 
needs to move forward, and this suit must be put in the past. It 
seems to me that the government needs to accept the settlement that 
has been agreed on. Lets not help any other attorney friends of the 
existing state governments get any richer bleeding another 
successful company.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030130

14055 Verona Ln. Apt. 15110
Centreville, VA 20120-6350
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax: 1-202-307-1454
    My general feeling after reading through the proposed final 
judgement is one of leniency. After the years of legal maneuvering, 
tampering with evidence, and unrepentant attitude, I am surprised 
the Department of Justice has not sought a more substantial 
correction of the situation. Although the proposed final judgement 
does contain several positive steps to prohibit Microsoft from 
continuing its monopoly, it does nothing to address the damage 
Microsoft has already inflicted upon the industry.
    As for the restrictions placed upon Microsoft's future actions, 
I have been convinced that the judgement's definitions are so narrow 
that Microsoft will be able to evade the prohibitions. For instance, 
the definition of "API" is drawn so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered. Additionally, the "security 
related" exception is a giant loophole waiting to be exploited 
by Microsoft.
    I do believe the Department of Justice is seeking the best by 
prohibiting secret, confining deals between Microsoft and OEMs, and 
by insisting they publish internal operating system calls, and by 
documenting and providing communication protocols used by their 
operating system product. These prohibitions will help end 
Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop. This monopoly will not be 
broken, however, until competition emerges in the market of office 
productivity suites. Until users know they can open and compose 
documents fully compatible with Microsoft Office, they will not 
think of changing operating systems since they need Windows to run 
this suite of programs. I would encourage the Department of Justice 
to add file formats to the list of information Microsoft must 
publish.
    Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions in this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Bernie Hoefer



MTC-00030131

Donald Faulk
P.O. Box 3214
Sulphur, LA 70664
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Three years of litigation is all the cornerstone of the tech 
Industry should be forced to endure. Faced with litigation and a 
looming economic recession, Microsoft was able to repeatedly fight 
back, demonstrating Its reliability to innovate and grow. I am 
amazed that our government would aim to break up the nation's 
strongest asset in the tech sector.
    Although I am pleased that Microsoft will not be broken up, the 
terms of the settlement, which, among other points, forces them to 
disclose interfaces Internal to Windows operating system products 
and grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows, are 
too harsh and violate Microsoft's intellectual property rights. 
While flawed, the settlement still represents

[[Page 28826]]

the best way out of further litigation. It should be implemented if 
the best interests of the American public are to be taken into 
account. Please use your influence to affect positive change. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Faulk



MTC-00030132

Fred Burris
3000 Southwest 180th Place
Beaverton, Oregon 87006-3925
January 25,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This short note is intended to encourage you to help expedite 
the settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. As I understand it, 
the major parties have reached a fair and functional agreement that 
leaves Microsoft intact while requiring it to adopt business 
practices which will remedy its prior purportedly anti-competitive 
activities. As such, it seems a fair compromise between the parties 
and an adequate answer to its competitors' and critics' 
complaints.
    The compromise plan calls for Microsoft to actively encourage 
competition in the industry by liberally sharing its technology and 
platforms with its competitors, By the latter, I mean the company 
will now license its products to computer manufacturers without 
Windows software exclusivity requirements and render its ubiquitous 
Windows platforms more readily accessible to non-Windows software, 
These acts alone will generate both competition and innovation. 
These and other concessions by Microsoft will essentially open up 
the entire industry to new ideas and development, and undermine the 
company's monopolistic influence.
    This agreement is fair; it is needed and needed now. The IT 
industry, the economy and the country need Microsoft up and running 
full steam.
    Sincerely,
    red Burns



MTC-00030135

10700 Rose ?? I and
??, NY 14031-2325
January 25. 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft and the antitrust 
settlement proposed. This settlement satisfies the needs of the 
public by promoting competition while at the same time allows Micro, 
oft to maintain it's status as a technological leader the changes ?? 
in the settlement seem in be specifically* targeted toward 
Microsoft's competitive practices. Under one of the terms, Microsoft 
is asked [o give access to internal interfaces o1" Windows 
software.. Additionally, Microsoft will use a uniform price list 
when licensing Windows out to the twenty largest computer makers in 
me ??. and will agree not to ?? against companies that use sell or 
promote non-Microsoft products. With ?? as the ones stated above, 
Microsoft is obviously not getting off easy.
    J believe that this proposal and are ?? satisfy the needs of 
public. I nope that you will support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    D. & Judith King



MTC-00030136

Pamela Spencer
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr, Ashcroft:
    As a fellow Republican in Rep. Tom Delay's district I wish to 
express my support of the settlement reached last November between 
the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation. It has now 
been 3 years since the Justice Department began the litigation 
process against Microsoft. During this time countless dollars have 
gone to court mediators who endlessly debated the merits of this 
case. In times where budgetary resources are becoming increasingly 
scarce this action is increasingly appalling. Three years has been 
too long. I cannot imagine there is anything more to discuss.
    Once more, the settlement that was reached contains many 
concessions on behalf of Microsoft. in an attempt to settle the 
dispute Microsoft has been willing to agree to these terms despite 
their lack of guilt in the case. Microsoft has agreed to design 
Windows XP with a particular mechanism that will allow users to add 
competing software Into the system. This will revolutionize the way 
our operating systems are configured. I believe that if Microsoft is 
willing to make these changes, the settlement should be enacted, I 
strongly support the settlement and look forward to the end of this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Pamela Spencer
    cc: Representative Tom DeLay
    3006 Oakland Dr. Sugar Land, Texas 77479-2451 . 
281.265.8283 . psspencer @ msn.com



MTC-00030137

Henry Reents
908 N 18th Street
Boise, 119 83702
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Like most who follow technology news, I am pleased that the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft have come to a settlement 
agreement after three years of litigation. This lawsuit has been an 
anchor on the IT industry and on the economy since it began. Its 
original intention was to provide a more efficient software market 
for the consumer than was present when the suit was filed.
    Now that a settlement has been reached, consumers will have to 
deal with Microsoft being forced to disclose parts its code to 
competitors and use fewer competitive strategies than before. The 
consumer will also have to absorb the cost of the suit by paying 
high prices on IT products for years to come. Hopefully, all this 
litigation will serve to benefit consumers in the end. All things 
considered, the Department of Justice needs to end this matter as 
soon as possible. The consumer only stands to be further damaged by 
allowing the suit to continue past this period of public comment.
    Henry Reents
    CC: Senator Larry Craig



MTC-00030138

8909 55th Place W
??, WA 98275
January 28, 2002
Attorney General ?? Ashcroft
US Department of ??,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 2053
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter Is to go on record as supporting the 
settlement that Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Justice 
reached. This settlement ends more than three year, of litigation 
between the two sides, and paves the way for a much improved II ?? 
and economy. Microsoft's co??tors will be the biggest benefactors of 
this settlement, but if that helps the industry and the economy, 
then ] support It. Micro?? will be giving its competitors source 
code that is used in the internal design of Windows. They are also 
allowing their coml??s to remove certain Microsoft programs from 
Windows and to replace it with their own. This will improve 
competition in the indi??stry and will force competitors to work 
hard to develop a good product. More com??ion will result in more 
consumers in the stores.
    This settlement works, and I support it. [ hope It Is approved 
as soon as ??le. Thank you. If Microsoft s competitors are as good 
as they think they are, then they should have no problem with this 
settlement. To take it further would p??alize Microsoft and give 
unfair advantage to It's competitors. If they want more, let them 
improve their product.
    Sincerely,
    Doris Eastman



MTC-00030139

Seattle, Washington
January 28, 2002
Renatta Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am a private citizen not employed by Microsoft. I am a member 
of an investment club for 21 years. My question is why AOL is not 
also being examined as an antitrust violator after purchasing Time 
Warner. How can other corporations compete with that huge company?
    Sincerely,
    Carol E. Ramamurti
    10455 Maplewood P1. S, W.
    Seattle, Washington 98146
    206 938 8412
    Fax: 202 616 9937 or 202 307 1454



MTC-00030140

1116 NW 52nd Street
Vancouver, WA 98663
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 28827]]

US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today regarding the settlement that was reached 
between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft Corporation in 
their three year long antitrust battle. I believe that this case has 
been propagated for far too long and the money and resources 
expended on both sides of this dispute could have been put to better 
use elsewhere.
    The terms of this settlement are fair. Microsoft has agreed to 
design all future versions of its Windows operating system to work 
in conjunction with the products of its competitors. The company 
will also cease any action that may be considered retaliatory. 
Adherence to this settlement will also be ensured by a government 
appointed oversight committee which will monitor Microsoft. It is 
clear to me that this settlement addresses the issues that were 
brought in this suit and then some. The reluctance of some people to 
accept these terms is proof that they are more concerned with 
perpetuating their own political agendas than they are with finding 
a suitable solution to this problem.
    Thank you for supporting this settlement and for allowing me to 
voice my opinion on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Marty Irwin



MTC-00030141

165 Pisgah Mountain Road
Booneville, AR 72927
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in response to the Justice Department's request for 
public comment on the settlement agreement reached in the Microsoft 
case. I support the agreement. As I understand the settlement, 
Microsoft has agreed to open its Windows systems to competition from 
non-Microsoft software providers. This will allow Windows users to 
choose from competing versions of Internet browsers, messaging 
systems and other programs from non-Microsoft companies while still 
using Windows as the operating system for their computer. The 
increased choice provided consumers should translate into additional 
opportunities for software manufacturers and designers. Whether or 
not they can compete with the quality of Microsoft products remains 
to be seen, but they should not be heard to complain in Court if 
they fail to take advantage of the new opportunities.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Shackleford
    cc: Representative Bob Stump



MTC-00030142

January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to contact you to share my approval of the settlement 
agreement reached with Microsoft. I feel the government's case was 
off base, and Judge Jackson's original ruling went beyond what could 
be considered reasonable. Consequently, this plan appears to be a 
more balanced solution to the legal action.
    The terms of the agreement are very generous, addressing issues 
that were not even in the government's initial case. Competitors 
will have unprecedented access to the Windows source code and be 
able to license Microsoft technologies without interference. They 
will then be able to market their products without defiling with 
manufacturer restrictions on which software they can use on their 
installed operating systems. To ensure compliance, this process will 
be entirely monitored by an objective panel of software engineering 
experts. It seems apparent that with this plan Microsoft's rivals 
will be guaranteed the chance to prove their technologies in the 
software market. Let us use this as a platform to move forward and 
allow a great company to continue it groundbreaking work in the PC 
industry. I appreciate your support.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00030143

January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to contact you to urge the approval of the settlement 
agreement reached with Microsoft. I believe Judge Jackson's original 
ruling was outrageous. Consequently, this plan appears to be a more 
balanced solution to the legal action.
    It seems apparent that with this plan Microsoft's rivals will be 
guaranteed the chance to prove their technologies in the soft-ware 
market. Let the market and the people decide. Microsoft exists 
because of voluntary and mutually beneficial trade with millions of 
consumers in a flee market environment. Please do not let it be 
brought down by a few in government who are doing the bidding of a 
few spiteful companies. In our troubled times we can't afford this 
misguided litigation.
    Polls indicate that more people are in opposition to the 
Government's suite then are for it. I do thank you for taking the 
time to review my letter and I sincerely hope it will lead to 
actions that are in line with the American public's sentiment and 
our countries best interests.
    Sincerely,
    James Dykes



MTC-00030144

Sharing Christ Through Art
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing during the public comment period to show my support 
for the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Your efforts in this regard 
have been a real service to our nation. believe that this suit 
should never have been brought.
    The settlement puts the best face on a bad situation. Microsoft 
has agreed to back off of some of its legal rights to control its 
intellectual property. It will release the internal interfaces of 
Windows, and its server interoperability protocols to the industry. 
Microsoft will give licenses, on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms, to companies who infringe on its copyrights and patents. 
Microsoft is cooperating with its industry. Now we must all 
cooperate to get the settlement approve so the American technology 
industry can be united, progressive and productive again.
    Thank you again for your support of the settlement. Let's show 
the federal court why this settlement must be approved.
    Sincerely,
    Cathie Rasch
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    P.O. Box 12278,
Charleston, SC 29422
1-843-762-7024, 1-843-762-1270 
fax
www.galleryex31.com



MTC-00030145

8039 E. Charter Oak Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480-483-2089
Fax480-483-2089
jerrygaz @ cox.net
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Before retiring as a wholesaler, I entered the technology field 
in 1996. I have learned a lot because of Microsoft's operating 
systems. Microsoft has been a great innovator. I support the 
settlement that was reached in November 2001. I believe it is in the 
best interest of our industry and the country. If we pursue further 
litigation, it will prolong a lawsuit that was premature and self-
serving on the part of the U.S. government. Where would we be 
without such an innovator? Put this issue behind us and move on to 
more important business. Thank you for this opportunity to publicly 
voice my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Gerber



MTC-00030146

820 Mabry Road
Sandy Springs, GA 30328
January 28, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
Washington DC
FAX 1-202-307-1454
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General:
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft Case. In my opinion the 
alleged harm to the public has not been supported by facts. 
Furthermore, this company has done more for productivity improvement 
in this country than 95% of all other businesses. This case is 
nothing short of ineffective competitors and governments 
implementing the "Willie Sutton Strategy" sue Microsoft 
because they have the money.
    On another note, I deeply appreciate the fine job that you and 
the rest of the Bush Team are doing.

[[Page 28828]]

    God Bless!
    Sincerely,
    cc: 
Microsoft @ 1-800-641-2255



MTC-00030148

Fax Coversheet
Date: Monday, January 28, 2002
Time: 2:50 PM
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Company: U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Fax Phone #: +1 (202) 307-1454
CC:
From: Lucille M. Mcculley
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Total # of Pages (including cover): 1
    Memo: Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express support for the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It seems like a good plan and a fair way to resolve what 
has beeen a lengthy and unnecessary inuiry into Microsft's business 
dealings. The settlement's terms are very generous to Microsoft's 
competitors, and giving them access to Windows programming codes 
will enable them to make their programs more compatible with 
Microsoft's operating system. Forgoing further exclusivity 
agreements with computer manufacturers will also diversify the 
market more than it already is. The settlement should give both the 
government and Microsoft what they want to ultimarly put the 
situation to rest. Please finalize the settlement without further 
delay. Sincerely, Lucille M. McCulley, 221 East 78th Street, NY NY 
10021



MTC-00030149

302 Saltmeadow Cove
Johns Island, SC 29455
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have come to the conclusion that the settlement that was 
reached in the--Microsoft antitrust case should be instituted. 
Any continuation or revival of this would be a waste of time and 
money for both plaintiff and defendant. After struggling for years 
to reach this settlement Microsoft and the Justice Department 
finally" reached a settlement with the help of a court 
appointed mediator. Microsoft "has compromised greatly in this 
settlement offering to allow competitors to view its confidential 
proprietary code, including internal interfaces, so these same 
competitors can use it to "better compete against Microsoft
    Unfortunately opposition to the settlement may try to prevent 
its implementation. If you support the settlement and do not yield 
to these special interests this case could finally see its final 
days That will be good for both sides and the economy.
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Sincerely,
    Shirley Passino
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00030150

URGENT
To: ATTNY. GEN. JOHN ASHCROFT
Voice Number:
Fax Number: 1-202-307-1454
Company:
From: JAMES E. WHITE
Company:
Fax Number: 1-501-884-3962
Voice Number: 501-884-3995
Date: 1/28/02 
Number of Pages: 2
Subject: MICROSOFT'S SETTLEMENT
Message:
    FULLY SUPPORT MICROSOFT'S ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT.
    JAMES E. WHITE
    115 Eagle Ridge Trace
    Fairfield Bay, Arkansas 72088
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of Microsoft's antitrust settlement with 
the federal government. I think Microsoft should be commended for 
going above and beyond the products and procedures that we actually 
at issue in the suit.
    The settlement is fair. Microsoft will accept many restrictions 
on the way it does business. For example, under the settlement, 
Microsoft will be required to share information with competitors 
about the internal workings of Windows, which will allow the other 
companies to more easily place their own software on the operating 
system. Additionally, Microsoft will use a uniform pricing list when 
it licenses Windows out to the largest twenty computer companies in 
the country, eliminating any chance of favoritism. I think Microsoft 
is given up a lot of who they are in this settlement for the sake of 
expediency and the greater good, and hope this government recognizes 
it, and accepts this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    James White



MTC-00030151

Advanced Glazing Systems L.L.C. WCL ADVANGS035N8
14580 N.E. 95TH STREET
REDMOND WA 98052-2550
tele 425 867 1032
fax 425 867 3037
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
number of pages including this page is
January 28,2002
1202 307 1454
616 9937
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support for Microsoft in regards to 
the antitrust settlement. To begin, this suit should not have been 
brought in the first place, but continuing litigation would prove to 
be even less fruitful, and rather unjust, All that has come out of 
this is a waste of time and money. Relatively speaking, the 
settlement is fair and it should stand the way it is. Microsoft is a 
company that has brought commerce on a large scale to this country 
and should be allowed to continue to do so. If people get wealthy 
off of their own endeavors that should be commended, but Microsoft 
is being dragged through court. The terms of the settlement are more 
than fair. Among many other requirements, the company has agreed to 
make the internal interfaces available to competitors so that they 
may design software that runs more efficiently on a Windows 
platform, and there will be a committee that will monitor the 
actions of Microsoft and their adherence to the terms.
    This settlement should be umfinalized and all proceedings 
against Microsoft should cease. Thank you for giving me the 
opportunity to voice my opinion on this matter.
    Sincerely yours,
    G. Allen



MTC-00030152

11460 NE 132nd Street Apt.
G103 Kirkland, WA 08034
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is unbelievable that the Department of Justice's lawsuit 
against Microsoft is in its third year. Parties envious of 
Microsoft's success brought the suit. I believe that the manner in 
which Microsoft became successful