[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29796-30305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5355]
MTC-00032329
From: John Hatch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hatch
3105 Sea View Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Hatch
MTC-00032330
From: Cleburne Medlock
To: DOJvsMS
Date: 12/14/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sirs:
First, allow me to introduce myself briefly. I, C. W. Medlock,
have worked in the ``Software'' field in a professional
capacity for more than 47 years. (My first course in
``programming'' was taken in 1950 at Purdue University.) I
have worked at such stalwarts of this industry as IBM
(1960-1966), NCR (1975-1977), etc. At IBM, I was one of
the six Architects of IBM's Operating System 360 (``OS/
360''), one of the world's first true Operating Systems
(1963-64). Also at IBM (1963), I was one of the six members of
the joint IBM/SHARE (a users group) team that developed the advanced
Programming Language One (PL/I) Although the latter language has
fallen into disuse due to more modern advances in such
``standard'', non?-proprietary languages a COBOL, PL/I
indeed was a most powerful language (for both scientific and
business computing) that I believe set the stage for the more modern
versions of COBOL and other more modern scientific computing
languages.
I, from 1982 to 1999, was proprietor of my own software
``home-business'' Pro/Am Software, where I developed and
marketed worldwide several software ``tools'' for use by
the programmer. It was here, as a ``lone survivor'' of a
great group of Information Age professionals, that I first
encountered the threats laid down by Microsoft's failure to disclose
much-needed facts that would allow entrepreneurs such as myself to
develop tools that would directly or indirectly interface with their
``Windows'' Operating System. (This does NOT mean that I
necessarily would have required the source code of Windows, but only
a FULL disclosure of Microsoft's file formats, OS interfaces,
details of invoking OS functions, etc. This should include such
disclosure of these interfaces for all of Microsoft's other products
which interface with Windows, as competitors and other users have a
need for this information just as well.) A case might easily be made
by Microsoft that they should have the full protection of their
intellectual property such as source code, where distribution of
same would allow many other (foreign?) businesses to easily make
copies of same, and, via suitable modifications, each apply their
own ``Trademarks'', ``Copyright'' notifications,
etc. However, I cannot imagine a case in any court where it could be
argued that it would be harmful to a legitimate, non-monopolistic
business for them to disclose FULLY the interfaces needed by ALL
users (developers and ordinary users alike) to fully use and expand
all features of Windows and all of it's associated Microsoft
Products! (I can quote more than a few examples of where I and other
developers were not able to obtain needed information about files
and other data formats that were needed to allow us to develop
products which would enlarge the capabilities of the Windows
operating system, thereby seemingly even strengthening its place in
the market.) Such a relatively ``open architecture'' has
indeed been the norm with such stalwart operating-system providers
as IBM, etc. (After all, the original IBM Personal Computer had even
it's Hardware and Software totally in the public domain. Microsoft
should at the very least provide the ``circuit diagram''
of their software, so that it could even be repaired more easily,
including making expansions and improvements thereto!)
The provisions in any Settlement with Microsoft should NOT be
limited to the interfaces with their Windows operating system, but
should indeed include ALL interfaces (direct or indirect) with ANY
Microsoft product. This is much needed by developers and many
consumers, as well!
I would like to help put Microsoft in its proper place in the
Software World, and see that the DOJ indeed does not ``sell
out'' to MS!
Most sincerely,
C.W.. Medlock
MTC-00032331
From: Jody Ausley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jody Ausley
PO Box 780282
San Antonio, tx 78278
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29797]]
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 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,
Jody Ausley
MTC-00032332
From: Nancy Emmert
To: DOJ
Date: 12/14/01 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
There are only two things more disgusting than the proposed
settlement between DOJ and Microsoft: one is the settlement proposed
by the states not party to it and the other is that the suit was
brought in the first place.
The very idea that the United States government should have been
party to an attempt to deprive ANY party of rights to its'' own
intellectual property is disgraceful, disgusting and every other
kind of ``dis-'' imaginable.
The only truly just judgment in this case is an order to have
members of what they're now calling the ``Liberty
Alliance'' strung up by their collective cajones., but that's
probably not an available option.
Therefore, I respectfully ask for an end this economic roadblock
and urge acceptance of the agreement submitted jointly by DOJ and
Microsoft. The dissenting states and the economic terrorists ought
to be told to take a hike.
Nancy Emmert ...
200 Roselawn ...
Coleman, Texas 76834-7012
MTC-00032333
From: Alden Ringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This message will be followed by a letter of the same content.
Alden C. Ringer
77 Brown Rd
Ctr. Tuftonbors NH 03816
MTC-00032334
From: Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/17/01 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
6600 Downey Finch Lane
Anchorage, AK 99516-2413
December 17, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Henry and Arlene Carle
MTC-00032335
From: Mark Miedlar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/19/01 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Miedlar
122 E. Cottage Ave
W. Carrollton, OH 45449
December 19, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29798]]
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
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,
Mark Miedlar
MTC-00032336
From: Philip Capps
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/20/01 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Capps
4507 Ave B
Austin, TX 78751
December 20, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Philip Capps
MTC-00032337
From: Keith Gallup
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Gallup
1707 Brandenbery Dr.
Surfside Beach, SC 29575-5478
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Keith Gallup
MTC-00032338
From: Charles Loeffler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Loeffler
7201 Wills Way
Hamilton, Oh 45011
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 29799]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charles E Loeffler
MTC-00032340
From: Tom Remshak
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Remshak
3250 n 87 st.
Milwaukee, WI 53222
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Tom Remshak
MTC-00032341
From: Adam Wiederholt
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adam Wiederholt
18228 Sunset Ln
Omaha, NE 68135
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for
[[Page 29800]]
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,
Adam R. Weiderholt
MTC-00032342
From: Perry Staley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/22/01 5:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Staley
411 Orchard Street
Ironton, OH 45638-1166
December 22, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Perry L. Staley
MTC-00032343
From: Mury
To:
[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]@inetgw...
Date: 12/22/01 3:44pm
Subject: Anti-competitive practices and Lies--Qwest and
Microsoft
Dear Qwest, MN PUC, FCC, USDOJ, FTC, and MN AGO:
I am sitting here on December 22, 2001 steaming mad at Qwest and
MSN (Microsoft). I should be out Christmas shopping, but I'm hardly
in the holiday spirit. It seems as though by partnering with MSN
Qwest thinks they have found a nice little loophole to circumvent
all the trouble they have found themselves in in the past by using
anti-competitive tactics in house.
As the MN PUC should recall they had to impose penalties against
Qwest a couple years back for anti-competitive marketing, product
pricing, treating their own Megacentral product differently than
they treated other ISP's Megacentral product, and for lying to
consumers. The PUC at that time penalized Qwest. A safeharbor number
was set up for consumers to call run by a third party. Qwest had to
provide free modems to ISPs and provide some coop marketing dollars
to help correct the harm done. This hardly compensated us for our
loses, but at least it brought Qwest, then US West, back in line.
Now they are up to the same antics, but they are getting around
the system by partnering with MSN. Qwest's web site is very
misleading and their phone reps flat out lie about pricing and
promotions.
(1) On their web site
http://www.qwest.com/residential/products/dsl/index.html:
Qwest starts out by favoring MSN with phrases such as,
``Get MSN Internet Access or select from hundreds of ISP
partners nationwide.'' Qwest makes it sound like customers will
only get free activation and a free modem if they choose MSN.
``Special DSL Offers--Purchase MSN Broadband Powered
by Qwest 256 or Deluxe and get FREE activation, FREE use of a DSL
modem, and 30 days of FREE service. CustomChoice customers will
receive 60 days of FREE service!*''
Markets a package that includes both MSN and Qwest:
``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest 256 256K/Up to 256K Use
for fast web surfing, e-mail and downloading moderate-size files.
$39.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order Now ``MSN logo
included
And
``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest Deluxe Up to 640K/Up to
256K Use for online gaming, e-mailing large attachments or
downloading large files. $49.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order
Now ``MSN logo included We have asked for similar treatment and
have been denied.
(2) When customers call in they are lied to frequently. I have
enclosed a letter from a existing customer that was moving from one
location to another who was told he would only get the promos if he
chose MSN. He didn't want MSN so he is switching to cable. I have
heard many other similar stories and there are probably countless
cases we don't hear about.
(3) If a customer wishes to switch from MSN to us they process
is different. Because the system is somehow tied into MSN's the
customer first must cancel the service with MSN before they can even
order it with us.
(4) The practice of delaying the install of MegaCentral lines
for ISPs is still poorly managed at best and maliciously hampered at
worst. We ordered a MegaCentral line for St. Cloud, Minnesota. On
May 24th, 2001 we received an install due date of June 8th, 2001.
Order Number N91370107
Due Date 6-8-01
Circuit ID 14/HCGJ/95372//ACSO
The circuit was finally installed around October 20th, 2001.
That's 4.5 months *overdue*. It is very important to note that this
install was in a building that has a common wall with the Qwest CO
and there was plenty of fiber running into the building. We selected
this site so there wouldn't be problems like this and we are paying
a premium in rent for the privledge.
We lost thousands of dollars and lost opportunity because of
this. I believe these issues should be looked into by each of you.
When we selected Qwest MegaCentral DSL as a product offering to base
our services on we were promised we would be treated fairly. This
has hardly been the case. I know Qwest thinks that because it's MSN
and out of house they can get away with it, but if they are being
compensated in the least out of the partnership they are certainly
violating the
[[Page 29801]]
spirit of the MegaCentral contracts with other ISPs and any
applicable tariffs.
As a special note to the US Department of Justice here is yet
another example of Microsoft entering into preferred relationships
that snub other competitors in the marketplace.
If any of you see this in my light and find Qwest is at fault,
please apply a quick and effective punishment and provide for *real*
compensation to be paid those of us who have been harmed.
Regards,
Mury Johnson
CEO
GoldenGate Internet Services
763-784-2800
Dear Golden Gate,
I just moved to a new address: 7124 W 113th St, Bloomington MN
55438 phone 952-941-0399. I was planning to transfer my
DSL service to the new location. However, Qwest wanted to charge me
an installation fee ($66 or $99) if I didn't use MSN, and the
service would take up to 2 weeks to get running. On the other hand,
RoadRunner (cable modem) would give me free installation and come
out on the day we moved in. Their bit rate is faster and it costs $5
less per month than DSL. So I decided to try RoadRunner. I
appreciate the great service I received from Golden Gate, but I am
sorry that I will not be needing it anymore. Could you please cancel
my internet service? Thank you.
John C. Harkness (hark11)
CC:Microsoft
ATR,ASKDOJ,[email protected]@...
MTC-00032344
From: james m nordlund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/23/01 5:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james m nordlund
p.o.b. 982
Lakin, KS 67860-0982
December 23, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James M Nordlund
MTC-00032345
From: Kevin Langdon
To: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Date: 12/23/01 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To those in charge of the Microsoft settlement negotiations: I
believe that nothing that has been done to date--specifically
including the abandoned plan to separate Microsoft's operating
system business from its applications business--has gone to the
root of the problem, which is the existence of Microsoft's monopoly
of the operating system business. This is not just market dominance
but a situation in which meaningful competition for non-niche-market
operating system business is effectively impossible.
Given the widely-reported chaos in the negotiations to date, it
may be time to introduce a new solution.
There is a remedy that would be highly effective. It would make
room for competitors in the operating system market while also
leaving Microsoft viable competitive strategies. What I propose is
simply that DOS and Windows (through 98), including all source code,
be placed into the public domain. Microsoft would be free to develop
its Windows 2000 and XP lines, but other companies would be free to
introduce competing developments from the common base of Windows98.
Please give this idea serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon
MTC-00032346
From: Stephen Teebagy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/26/01 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Teebagy
99 Garrett Place
Plymouth, MA 02360
December 26, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Microsofts
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 Technical Committee
will work out of Microsofts headquarters for the next five years, at
the companys expense, and monitor
[[Page 29802]]
Microsofts 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,
Stephen Teebagy
MTC-00032347
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 12/26/01 2:27pm
Subject: Commentary on Microsoft settlement
I believe that the DOJ settlement is the best offer on the table
for the United States as a whole.
Apparently the ``other'' states want to destroy
Microsoft. Don't let this happen.
Despite the personal interest of the people at Oracle, Sun, et.
al., Microsoft has propelled the microcomputer industry foreword to
a standard.
This benefits everyone (including people that don't own
computers). I have been a professional programmer since 1989, and
while I still prefer the Mac OS, I believe that especially with the
current economy we need to SETTLE THIS CASE BASED ON THE DOJ
RECOMMENDATION now.
Thanks,
-Chris C.
P.S.
Please tell Larry Ellison to shut up, and tell Sun to submit
Java to a standards committee. (tell, not order)
MTC-00032348
From: Timothy Ray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/27/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Ray
616 S. Sheridan
Fergus Falls, MN 56537-3018
December 27, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Timothy Ray
MTC-00032349
From: Jerry Jorgensen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 3:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Jorgensen
2505 Las Brisas Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
[[Page 29803]]
Sincerely,
Jerry Jorgensen
MTC-00032350
From: Douglas Warren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 4:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Warren
2 Flintstone Drive
Marlton, NJ 08053-2111
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Douglas A. Warren
MTC-00032351
From: Jan Hall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Hall
7984 Via Villagio
W. Palm Beach, FL 33412
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jan Hall
MTC-00032352
From: Mark Buell
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 12/28/01 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
Dear Sir or Madam;
I strenously object to the current talk of settlement with
Microsoft. They have consistently demonstrated that they are
incorrigibly anti-competitive, and have consistently failed to honor
the spirit, if not the letter, of previous settlements. I see
nothing in the current settlement offered that shows me anything
other than a continuation of the current monopoly situation.
Since I am also completely convinced that having the market
completely change the operating ground rules every two years is not
good for consumers, I am raising my voice to object to the DOJ-
Microsoft settlement.
Regards;
Mark Buell
3814 Emerson Ave.
Memphis, TN 38128
[email protected]
CC:``[email protected]''
MTC-00032353
From: L.D. Best
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 12/29/01 1:01pm
Subject: Suggestion
I learned long ago that I cannot know everything. I know a bit
about how the ``law'' works because I've been forced to
deal with it on my own, without an attorney. I know quite a bit
about how computers work, because both my budget and my interests
have had me building my own stuff. I also know quite a bit about how
software works, and how/why some software doesn't work, because I've
had a personal computer for twenty (20) years now. Much of the best
software I have--or had--is no longer of much worth to me,
because the companies who sold and supported it were either run out
of business by Microsoft, or bought out so the software could be
``incorporated'' into
[[Page 29804]]
a Windows bundle ... thus making it unworkable. And being forced to
move to Windows means that I've had to move from a `286
machine to a Pentium 4 1.4GHz machine ... a big jump that leaves the
majority of the worlds'' population unable to make it.
My suggestion is that when it comes to software and computer
systems and fairness of any settlement, lawyers do NOT know enough
to make the decisions. There are still a few software companies
around who might be able to give attorneys a better view of what
software should and shouldn't do, what system integration should and
should not be, what exclusionary practices should be considered as
ongoing monopolistic activities. And there are, of course,
``the open source people''--not exclusively
Linux--who could explain more clearly the dangers of continuing
to allow Microsoft to determine what its punishment should be.
Microsoft's business practices, and the current
``settlement'' as proposed, are horribly dangerous... and
that is NOT a flagrant exageration. They released Windows 2000 while
publicly admitting there were at least 1,000,000 bugs they didn't
want to bother to fix; they released WindowsME with a blare of
trumpets, and within weeks were telling any and sundry to NOT
upgrade to ME because of too many problems; they released WindowsXP
with a promise of the best security and safety of any release to
date--and now are having to face the fact that it offers what
is possibly the worse system security breech ever found in any
software ever used! But that is not the only danger. Because of the
way Microsoft has done, and continues to do, business with
advertising and hype to grab the public and scores of lawyers to
assist in the ``legal'' theft of the intellectual
properties of others, scores of good companies doing good work
producting excellent software have been driven out of business, and
tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the last ten
years ... all directly as a result of Microsoft. To allow Microsoft
to continue to exert so much influence, to effective encourage
Microsoft to continue doing what they have always done, is going to
negatively impact an economy which is stil so badly shaken up that
no one with ethics would even attempt to forecast what will happen
in the next year.
And DOJ has to realize that Microsoft can never be judged by
``a jury of peers'' because no other commercial enterprise
in the history of the world ever managed to get such a stranglehold
on the economy of multiple nations; the railroad monopolies, the
steel monopolies, the ``good ol'' boy clubs'' of the
last two centuries are all child's play compared to Microsoft. And
the ``power of the dollar'' that Bill Gates himself wields
is without equal, or even reference points ...
If the proposed settlement is not scrapped, and the original
remedies ordered not implemented, DOJ is effectively placing the
security and the economy of our country into the hands of Microsoft.
Not only is that bad business, it's un-Constitutional IMNSHO.
Most sincerely,
l.d.
L.D. Best
Concerned Citizen
Computer Geek
Disabled Veteran
Mother of Three Ethical Children [maybe 2.5?]
Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
MTC-00032354
From: betty mayes-petty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 4:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
betty mayes-petty
route 1 box 231
cunningham, ky 42035
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Betty S. Mayes-Petty
MTC-00032355
From: JAMES CROSSLIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JAMES CROSSLIN
15523 Chickamauga Ave.
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29805]]
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors.
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
JAMES E. CROSSLIN
MTC-00032356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 8:12pm
Subject: my 2 cents worth
This settlement is a joke. It allows Microsoft to tie up in
litigation new battles until the founder grows old and dies. With
this settlement, Microsoft will continue their deceitful practices.
Any deviation will take months or even years to settle in a court of
law.
Example:
Microsoft puts out information for developers that allow them to
use part of the Windows Operating system to develop a product. This
is a normal part of any OS development business. Here is what will
happen, Microsoft will later change the OS which prevents the
developers product from working--while conveniently, however;
the new and upgraded OS has a microsoft version of the developers
middle ware that works just fine.
This is another way to stamp out competition. If anyone thinks
that settlement is fair, it is not. This method of working can only
be compared to a drug dealer. The first few are free, suddenly your
addicted and its a must have in order to operate.
We have grown dependent on software as a means to operate in our
everyday lives.
Microsoft will only tie everything up in court for ever. Here's
a good ``pin prick'' for Microsoft.
Require Microsoft to buy for low income schools competing
software of the Schools choice--the choice can NOT be any
Microsoft product.
Have it be equivalent to the amount of money damage caused thus
far.
How about a billion dollars. No sweat to Microsoft.
Use ANY competing companies--Apple, IBM, SUN, Linux. etc.
PS--Don't let Microsoft gain any money by investing in the
companies that it is competing with.
Good Luck!
I'm glad your prosecuting and I hope the US wins.
Ben
MTC-00032357
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This suit was ill advised from the start. Settle NOW!
Don Page
Dragoon, AZ
MTC-00032358
From: Don Stults
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion, the litigation against Microsoft should cease. I
have a difficult time understanding why the case was litigated.
There seems to be a ``punish the proficient'' attitude in
this case. Microsoft has invested a lot of money to develop products
CONSUMERS WANT and they have accepted ALL the market risks (sales,
worldwide copyright infringement, and yes, competition).
Let Microsoft get on with their business (which they do
well)...the continuing litigation expenses will NOT be paid by
Microsoft, it will be paid by consumers of their products. Don
Stults [email protected]
MTC-00032359
From: Bob Levittan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle it NOW!!!!! Don't let this travesty continue. From the
very beginning, this whole thing has been about Sun, Netscape, AOL
et al, using litigation as a means to compete. END IT NOW! STOP
WASTING MY MONEY! SPEND MORE TIME TRYING TO MAKE OUR LIVES SAFER.
STOP WASTING TIME AND MANPOWER!
END IT NOW!
Bob Levittan
50 Cliftwood Drive
Huntington, NY 11743
MTC-00032360
From: Donald Hetrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please record my support to finally settle the endless
litigation against Microsoft. I find the current settlement harsh,
but feel its fine if it can finally be concluded so our country can
move on.
Thank You,
Donald J. Hetrick
MTC-00032361
From: tobeyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello,
I've been working as a software developer since 1964.
In my opinion, Microsoft has attained their current position is
because---
(1) They listen to the requests of Computer Users.
(2) They develop quality solutions based on Users requests.
(3) They provide an integrated platform for Independent and
Corporate Developers to provide effective solutions for their
clients.
Imagination and Innovation are the keys.
Thanks,
David Drake
MTC-00032362
From: Kaveh Mofidi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00032363
From: Rick Weyenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle now!
MTC-00032364
From: Miriam A. Detert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
This entire case is the most unjust case your so called Justice
Department has ever taken . You are prosecuting an innocent man and
company. They have done more for this country than anyone in many,
many years.
Miriam A. Detert
MTC-00032365
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
The Microsoft settlement is harsh, and more than enough penalty
for Microsoft. Prolonging this only benefits a few special
interests, for their own greed. AOL is prime for a monopoly
investigation, and is campaigning for more against Microsoft to
benefit their own interests. The few states protesting were only
being more greedy than the rest, looking for a free ride on someone
esle's money. No one is forced to buy Microsoft or use IE, but do
because it is a better product.
Leave them alone.
Jan Roberts
MTC-00032366
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: usdoj
Date: 1/1/02 8:15am
Morning,
I am not a big fan of Microsoft. But I will say this take
Mircosoft and close it down (split it up)how many thousands of
people who work for Microsoft lose their job. How many on the
outside of Microsoft will lose their job.
The affects of September 11 are felt world wide. People can no
longer work because of the changes made to every industry and
business. Now we want in the name of
[[Page 29806]]
fairness to break up mircosoft. Why because the competition hasn't
got the courage to go out and face Mircosoft without the governments
help.
When it comes to law I don't expect much. It seems who ever has
the smarts to make money and be forward thinking will always be open
to attach by the greedy and the supposed do gooders (governement and
lawyers) of this world.
Only in America a country of which I am proud to be a part can
the minority change the way of life for the majority. Only in
America can one person change a system that can affect thousands
even if the thousands don't what the change.
I hear reference to the constitution all the time. But has
anyone lately ever truly read it. I don't think so. Every time
someone doesn't like something they point to the constituation and
say my rights are not being given to me.
As I said at the beginning I am not a fan of Microsoft. Do I use
their products? Yes some and others no. Thats because as an
individual I have choices and if I choose not to use something I can
turn it off or not buy it.
Yet the courts and the government in their do good way wish to
take choices away from the people and pass laws that say we must use
this product or that product.
Freedom of choice on my part I don't think so. Freedom of choice
something the government and the courts have forgotten about. They
now make the choices for us citizens and there in lies the basic
causes of all our problems today.
I know the courts and the government will disagree with me as
they must to ensure that they have positions of power and control.
Common sense which was onced used in this country on a daily basis
has been replaced by greed, personal wishes and power of the few (in
politics and law) over the many and is support by the government and
the courts.
There are more important thing to worry about in our country and
the world today. Leave Microsoft alone and lets get this country
back on its feet.
Paul
MTC-00032367
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Bruce Gladstone
Date: 1/1/02 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Settlement
Dear Bruce,
Even the MS-only software donated to underprivileged schools?
Some penalty! It's like requiring an over-agressive religion to
distribute its catechisms to poor people.
Now, if they required MS to distribute & support Linux or
BSD or Corel or Netware, perhaps I would believe it was a
``penalty'' and not government- sanctioned self-promotion.
Tom
On Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 13:53, Bruce Gladstone
wrote re
``Settlement'' saying: I am thoroughly in agreement with
the settlement reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department. I
believe the continuing objections by the State's Attorneys General
are politically motivated and are not designed to benefit consumers
in the slightest. This is especially true of Atty. Gen Lockyear in
my home state. It is no coincidence that both Sun and Oracle are
California Corporations, both would much rather not compete with
Microsoft based server applications and database software and both
were significant contributors to Atty. General Lockyear.
- Bruce
Bruce Gladstone
email: [email protected]
3937 Sumac Dr.
tel: (818) 986-2950
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
fax: (818) 981-5922
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
----@Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633
fax:231-6115
----bs--<,758 Albert
St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*)ICQ:57647974 [email protected] N45.412 W75.714
Laws are the spider's webs which,
if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
but large things break through and escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the
rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of
those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James
Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
CC:Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@inet...
MTC-00032368
From: Dale E. Anderson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/2/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale E. Anderson
814 West Third Avenue
Garnett, KS 66032-2002
January 2, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dale E. Anderson
MTC-00032370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
I'm all for the present microsoft settlement, I don't think they
were a monopoly, I think it was a liberal witch hunt.
MTC-00032371
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
When is enough, enough? I think it may very well be when I see
more and more tax dollars go down the tube to persecute a business
and with no perceptible gain to me or the general public. It seems
to me that my dollars are being used to assist other major
corporation executives line their pockets. I was under the
impression that a satisfactory settlement had been reached. I guess
also the attorneys must feel that there is more to be gained by the
hours charged for continuing litigation. Let them go back to chasing
[[Page 29807]]
ambulances and let Microsoft's competitors go to marketing their own
products for their profits.
Donald S. Chakas
610 W. Pacificview Drive
Bellingham, WA.
MTC-00032372
From: w--engstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
Instead of being harassed by the U. S. Government, Microsoft
should be considered as a National Treasure. Its exported products
help our economy and expand our capabilities. I think that the court
case against Microsoft was totally unfounded. Whatever concessions
that Microsoft makes are more than adequate, and in my opinion
should not even be necessary. While there are those people (mainly
Microsoft's competitors) who want to suppress Microsoft, we believe
that Microsoft provides great products and follows up with great
support for those products.
Microsoft's products are sometimes released with
``bugs.'' However, Microsoft readily provides fixes via
the Internet as soon as they realize there is a problem. Their
customer support is outstanding. As an engineer, I recognize that
few products that hit the marketplace can be perfect, and that it is
impossible to foresee everything that can go wrong, no matter how
well you plan. In spite of this, Microsoft does a great job and has
provided significant support to the technology and economic health
of the industry and our country.
William Engstrom
3110 181 Avenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052-5934
PS, I haven't seen Janet Reno or Joel Klein producing any
software or anything else of value to the country lately. Thank God
they are no longer with the Government. The main thing that can be
said of Joel Klein is that he successfully used the Microsoft suit
as a stepping stone to a better-paying job. But he left a wake of
destruction behind him.
MTC-00032373
From: William B. Zollars
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It seems to me that the settlement arrived at between the
Justice Dept. and Microsoft is fair and should be put to rest. I am
a Microsoft OS user and think their products are excellent. They
should direct their efforts toward creating new software rather than
having to spend so much money in legal fees defending charges by
their competitors.
William B. Zollars
phone: (412)835-4741
fax: (412)835-4781
email: [email protected]
MTC-00032374
From: Larry Timmons
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
As a professional engineer that conducts business around the
world I can attest to the usefulness of the Microsoft family of
products and the increase in productivity these standard products
have allowed. Our business helps bring foreign revenue to the US.
Our ability to communicate with foreign companies is dependent on
using the same software.
While you may consider some of the previous tactics that
Microsoft has allegedly used anti-competitive, the net result has
been establishing a standard with which the world of business can
communicate. For those of us that remember computers of the 80's and
early 90's when there were few standards.
At that time I spent most of the time just getting various
software packages to run consistently on the computer.
This resulted in a substantial amount of wasted time. Today's
programs enable us to conduct business without being computer
wizards.
I personally feel that the government has pushed this case well
beyond its merits and strongly urge the DOJ to settle this matter as
proposed and let us business people get on with life and let
Microsoft continue to bring us new and useful products. Let the free
market decide the future of Microsoft.
L.M. Timmons, President
Aircraft Engineering Specialists, Inc.
425-641-6631
MTC-00032375
From: BillMeelater
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Public Comment
Dear DOJ,
I think the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is fair and
I believe it is in the best interest of consumers, the country and
Microsoft to get on with the business of business and stop this
seemingly endless litigation.
Perhaps I am missing something, but as a computer software and
hardware consumer for over 20 years, I still fail to see how I've
been hurt by the Microsoft Corporation. I have never felt cheated
by, or felt forced to buy just their products. They are
competitively priced and function very well considering the nature
of computers and software.
I think it's safe to say that in this case, the governments
actions against Microsoft have slowed a great company's progress
towards further enabling consumers, businesses, government, etc.
from becoming more productive and efficient. Ironically, the DOJ has
done more to hurt people who own Microsoft stock than Microsoft will
ever do to stockholders or consumers. While I agree that a big
company such as Microsoft can intimidate other start ups and crush
competition, one should realize that business, like nature itself,
has a natural order and rhythm. At some point in time, Microsoft
won't be the `big gorilla' on the block. In the
meantime, by having almost a standard operating system for computers
in general, we all benefit from increased productivity. Again, after
the big phone company breakup, and the disappearance of a common
long distance carrier, it was (and still is) tough to make long
distance calls from phones you don't own. If you've dealt with
computers for any length of time, the nightmare doubles in scope
without standards in place.
Forgive the rambling. Let's get back to work doing something
constructive. The country's economy is not well, and we need to end
what I consider somewhat of a--`witch hunt',
brought on largely by a few jealous competitors. I repeat--as a
consumer of operating systems, browsers, office suites, etc., I have
never felt cheated by Microsoft's products.
Sincerely,
Bill Braun
Colorado
MTC-00032377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm
Subject:
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Anne Smidt
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=``us-ascii'';
format=flowed
For heaven sakes--let's not prolong this litigation any
longer. The Dept of Justice took a stand & let's abide by their
rulings. Please consider the public's best interests and not make
this a vendetta instigated by Microsoft's so-called competitors or
``special interest'' groups. The public wants this over
with. I WANT THIS LITIGATION TO END NOW.
V. Anne Smidt
MTC-00032378
From: rtalarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft ....
To whom it may concern,
In my opinion punishing Microsoft can only stymie other hitech
companies in America from doing innovative work in the future.
America should be proud of what Microsoft has contributed to the
world. Microsoft has greatly helped America become the leader in
computer technology.
Many other competitors are envious of this contribution both
here and abroad. Lets not destroy in what we have created. Lets move
forward , for the battle to be won will be, to keep America the
Leader in advanced of technology.
Thank you,
Robert Talarczyk
MTC-00032379
From: Vi Ann B. Clough
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think it s time to just settle this dispute and not have any
more litigation. Microsoft got where it is by working at it and
should NOT be stiffled because someone else wants a piece of the
cake.
Thank you,
Mrs. Ralph D. Clough
[email protected]
[[Page 29808]]
MTC-00032380
From: bill boone
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Attorney General of the United States of America
When the Microsoft case is finally settled, the economy will get
back on track. Confidence will be restored to small and large
investor alike.
Microsoft will be able to get back full time to do what they do
best, being the leader in inovation in making our lives better, at a
reasonable price.
Stop the never ending litigation, and settle.
Sincerely,
Josephine M. Boone (Mrs.)
903 Mc Donald Road
Cle Elum, Washington 98922-8933
509-674-2975--phone
509-674- 5947--fax
[email protected] -e-mail
CC:Dept. of Justice
MTC-00032382
From: Bill Pickering
To: Dept of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 9:03am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
AMERICA MUST FACE THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE AND RESPOND CORRECTLY The
proposed terms of antitrust settlement with Microsoft to distribute
free operating software to education markets is totally unacceptable
and should NOT be passed by individual states not the Justice Dept.
The proposed action is really not a penalty--it is a benefit to
Microsoft.
1. Anyone with an abacus can figure out it doesn't cost
$1billion to press, distribute CDs to schools. This is only a slap
on the wrist, and certainly no where close to global community
service! It's ineffective action against a known monopoly and poses
no penalty for Microsoft's illegal gains.
2. Sending free Microsoft Windows CDs to schools is only forcing
educational markets to accept the Windows operating system--a
contrived ploy to further perpetuate the very Microsoft monopoly the
Justice Department is trying so diligently to eliminate! Schools who
use other computing platforms receive no benefit from this proposed
action. The proposed settlement is pure nonsense, designed to
benefit no one except Microsoft.
Please do not accept this ridiculous settlement proposal. It
would be devastating to our economy in the long run, and it
demoralizes America's trust in our justice system.
Hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers and students across
our nation have already reviewed and rejected this proposal. These
folks are now asking and watching to see if individual states and
the Justice Department are also wise enough to see the deception
behind this proposal and refuse it's acceptance.
Microsoft continues its takeover of existing software companies
at an alarming rate. Several more companies have become
``Microsoft property'' in past several months (incl. Great
Plains Accounting). Microsoft apparently fails all reasonable
efforts to deploy required self-control measures and stop it's
monopolistic practices. Instead, Microsoft defies judicial orders to
halt predatory practices altogether. These uncontrolled (antitrust)
practices are a devastating injustice against Americans and
computing industry competitors; as such must be halted by the
Justice Department. More appropriate settlement terms must be
pursued, or Microsoft must be split up.
Please don't turn you back on America. Do not accept the
settlement proposal.
MTC-00032383
From: Claude Prevots
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings:
The lawsuit against Microsoft was ill conceived and a serious
detriment to the economic health of this nation. It does not help
consumers but prevents MIcrosoft from helping consumers. The present
settlement was too long in coming but should be accepted to end all
further litigation. Let Microsoft innovate and consumers will
benefit more than if further litigation is allowed to continue.
Have a good day.
Claude Prevots
[email protected]
MTC-00032384
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: In my opinion, the entire Microsoft
issue is about money and another way for the law profession to
``feather their nest''. It has nothing to do with
antitrust, monopolies or protecting the ``John Q Public''.
Microsoft does NOT have monopoly on anything. There are several
other operating system options available for which the end user can
use the browser he or she prefers. As a matter of fact, he or she
can use the browser of choice with Windows!
I use Microsoft products on a regular basis. It is my choice to
use these products because, as a developer, my customer base also
uses Microsoft products and in order for my products to function on
my customers equipment, I must produce software that will work on
their equipment.
If the customer base used Unix, Apple, or O/S 2, I would
probably go that route. Every dollar Microsoft spends to protect
itself from frivolous litigation means that I am going to have to
spend more for products I use. As with taxes, corporations do not
pay for the cost of litigation-- their customers do!
The only winners going this route are those folks with
``Esquire'' after their names. Please end this as soon as
possible. ``Trickle Down Economics'' goes both ways, you
know!
Sincerely,
Robert L. Dahlberg
Carol E. Dahlberg
145 W Midway Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80020
MTC-00032385
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: USDOJ
Date: 1/4/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
I will keep my comments short, not through lack of interest, but
because it is high time this case is settled for the good of the
consumers. The Tunney Act is fair to all concerned. Let us now end
this case and get the DOJ back to prosecuting criminals and
Microsoft back to making software.
Stephen DeWalt
MTC-00032386
From: James O'Connell
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/5/02 9:40am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
As a principal software engineer who's been working in the
software industry for years, I want to express to you how happy I
was to see a settlement with Microsoft, thereby ending three years
of antitrust lawsuits.
Upon review of the terms, it is evident that the settlement is
more than fair. The terms require Microsoft to 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 terms also promote significant change in
the way Microsoft develops, licenses, and markets its software. A
committee to make sure that Microsoft abides by the agreement will
oversee all of this. Not only are these terms well thought out, but
also they obviously benefit all parties involved.
I am sure that there are many other pressing issues to
concentrate on rather than continue to focus on Microsoft. The more
we delay this process, the more we delay getting our technology
industry back on its feet. The global market is an extremely
competitive one, and we need to stay on top of the race. Please help
support our IT sector by helping to make sure that no further action
is taken against the current settlement.
Sincerely,
James W. O'Connell
99 Winsor Ave
Watertown, MA 02472-1482
MTC-00032387
From: Dariusz Jarzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a Microsoft software user, and a citizen of this great
country, I support the US government and Microsoft efforts to settle
the current lawsuit to the benefit of the consumer. I strongly
support this settlement which allows the best and most inovative
corporations to continue to develop the best software programs as a
result of their creativity, their consumer-oriented research and
their willingness to contribute to develop a more efficient work
environment.
Darek Jarzynski
Issaquah, WA
MTC-00032389
From: Susan Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 29809]]
I don't believe that anti-trust laws are constitutional. The
government should not be involved in economics. Please repeal the
Sherman Antitrust laws.
Susan Sheridan
MTC-00032390
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:21pm
Subject: Please Allow Microsoft to Operate Without Penalties
Capitalist America is supposed to boost Capitalism, not destroy
it. Many of us profit when Microsoft profits. Employees, customers,
investors all benefit. This action should not have been taken to
advance the competitors who instigated it. Settle it now and let
Microsoft and its beneficiaries get on with their business.
Pat and Fred Carlson, 766 Calle Pecos, Thousand Oaks, ca 91360.
[email protected]
MTC-00032391
From: Fabiano Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Att. To Whom it May Concern
As many others Alternative Operational Systems that have been
hurt by the monopolistic policies of MicroSoft. We received the
request from the headers of various projects to manifest ourselves
and let our minds be known, so here it is, agreeing to the last ii
and jj to the requests being made by many users all over the world.
I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if
the following issues aren't addressed:
MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in
form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-
Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats for flawless
interaction with Windows users.
The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but
other OS too.
The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that
any OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-
boot'' an alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in
order to remedy the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
MTC-00032392
From: Stu Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Enough is enough! Microsoft provides excellent product support
at no charge, while their competitors don't even know what the term
means. Microsoft has EARNED their position by savvy marketing,
customer support and reasonable prices. The agreement with the DOJ
was fair. What the states want is the destruction of Microsoft so
that their home town losers can form a new monopoly of high priced
products with lousy service. This is NOT in the best interest of the
community of users!
Stu Adler
14914 Mayall St.
Mission Hills, CA 91345
MTC-00032393
From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:45pm
Subject: settlement
B.Gates, et al:
MSFT uber alles!! Don't give up the ship. The whole US is sick
and tired of the DOJ hammering MSFT with no real objective other
than to inflate the egos of its zealot lawyers. All the best, and
happy new year!! OPHTH1, an admirer.
MTC-00032394
From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am a Microsoft ``Consumer'', as well as a Microsoft
shareholder in my IRA. I am retired and a Social Security recipient.
And I guess that this is my only opportunity to say what I think re
the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlement. So here it is.
If Netscape, Sun Microsystems, et al, think that they have been
``screwed'', how about me? As I recall, Netscape joined
with AOL in a deal that paid Netscape appx. four billion dollars.
Now isn't that a sad story! But I had Microsoft stock in my IRA for
my retirement days (I am now 73 years of age), and I lost 50% of my
retirement fund within days of the time that Judge Jackson,
extremely biased against Microsoft by anybody's standards,decided to
rule that the company that has done more for the U.S. economy than
any other in recent history should be split apart. My retirement
funds, along with those of thousands of others, were lost apparently
because Microsoft's competitors opted to pressure Congress (Orrin
Hatch, for one) and the Department of Justice to make their
businesses successful, rather than to achieve comparable success
through their own brain power and effort.
I owned my own small business and no Attorney General, lawyers
or courts helped me. My company provided good products and good
service. And when I installed a Microsoft system (that makes me a
``Consumer'') I did not feel cheated. I was happy with the
product I purchased and am still happy with the equipment I still
use at home in my retirement years. But my retirement prospects are
not nearly such a pretty sight due to this litigation that is going
on and on and on and on.
The proposed settlement appears to be a good one for all
concerned. My congratulations to both the Department of Justice and
Microsoft for that. But what right do those still opposing the
settlement have to harm me further for their own selfish interests?
Let them get to work, just as I did (on a smaller basis, of course),
and make it on their own merits instead of sponging off of someone
else's intelligence and hard work.
In this time of national stress this country and all of us need
all of the incentive our economy and our stock market can get. Our
President is right! Our economy needs a stimulus--and it won't
come by cow-towing to limited selfish interests by such as those
refusing to accept the proposed settlement and vowing to pursue
further litigation. Let's get on with what's best for our country,
our elderly (myself and my wife included), and all others with
retirement programs of all ages, our military men and women, and
those who are just plain happy with their Microsoft products. Enough
of this particular hasseling and litigation. Bill and Melinda Gates
have set an outstanding example by donating over a billion dollars
of their personal income (undoubtedly mostly from Microsoft profits)
to very worthy charities throughout the world. How rewarding it
would be if some of these litigation-happy competitors would do
likewise with even a small fraction of the big bucks they are
contributing to big-name trial lawyers!!
God Bless America.
Respectfully Submitted,
S. Ben Riva
Bellevue, Washington .
MTC-00032395
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I would just like to say that Microsoft should not be broken up
by any means. It's not the jurisdiction of our government do define
competition as total equality. It would be punishing people who have
worked hard to create a product that people like and buy. The
government does not have the right to say who prospers or define
one's earnings. Now that Explorer is free it forces Netscape to be
original, provide the consumer with something new that Explorer does
not allow. It forces other people to create, to strive. You do not
punish Gates for being successful. Apple computer still has a
wonderful product which they sell. The government suppressing
individuals ability to create is everything the framers of our
constitution would go against. Gates has the right to his property.
This is the equivalent of if I owned large amounts of land so I
could sell it at lower prices hurting real estate companies, so the
government took my land. That says that my property is not mine, but
rather everything I own is up to the discretion of the state to
take. We do not live in a socialist government, and I fear that this
decision would be another attempt for the government to define our
lives as a collective regime to help one another. Look the
government cannot violate ones property rights. If this decision
goes through then that says that says the government can control
ones property which is strait communist no doubt. There's no
violation of the law unless Microsoft hurts the rights of another.
The constitution says we as individuals have the right in the
pursuit of happiness. That does not mean happiness is guaranteed to
the individual. Neither does it mean the state has the right to
define the level of happiness we're allowed. Please please please do
not break up Microsoft.
[[Page 29810]]
MTC-00032396
From: The Talleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I agree with the terms of the settlement.
MTC-00032397
From: Carol Kelly
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 5:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Kelly
78401 Bigelow Way
Cottage Grove, OR 97424-9430
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carol A. Kelly
MTC-00032398
From: Sean OToole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: US Dept of Justice.
As a concerned citizen and tax payer I urge you to put the
Microsoft case to rest. It may have been a nice idea for the Federal
Government and State Governments to sue Microsoft when the economy
was soaring and the states saw dollar signs....those days are gone.
I understand that a few high level government officials are looking
for private sector jobs and like to make a name for themselves while
they have the unlimited budget of the taxpayer. If we continue to
allow a few lawyers seek name recognition at the expense of the
corporation we will destroy our free economy.
The governments job should be to protect the greater public
interest and allow Americans to pursue their own happiness. It has
been made very clear in this case that Microsoft has not damaged the
consumer or the public's interest. I appreciate all our government
does. Americans truly are fortunate to live here and I am grateful
for the Department of Justice and the people who serve there.
In this matter I think we should let the free market solve the
competitive issues.
Thank you.
SEAN OTOOLE
MTC-00032399
From: Aubrey Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
I think the microsoft settlement is Fair let it stand.
Thanks Aubrey Brewster
MTC-00032402
From: John Mulhall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mulhall
7 Evergreen Lane
Cazenovia, NY 13035
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John A. Mulhall
[[Page 29811]]
MTC-00032403
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that it's in the best interest of American consumers (and
indeed of the US economy) for the DOJ to quickly resolve it's issues
with Microsoft. I think that there never really was a case against
Microsoft that warranted any kind of major penalties.
Thank you.
Larry Delaney
Consumer and small business owner
MTC-00032404
From: Jonathan Tarbox
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs;
I was deeply involved with the BeOS operating system at one time
and would greatly love to get back into the swing of things with it.
However, since Be, Inc. is no more and Palm is hesitant about
licensing out the BeOS source code to the BeUnited project
(www.beunited.org), I thought I'd voice my opinion.
The main thing that prevented BeOS, or any non-Microsoft
operating system, from being shipped on any mainstream OEM computers
was the MS licensing preventing OEM companies from being able to
install other operating system. There should be no bonus or penalty
to an OEM for not installing or installing another operating system
on a shipping PC. From what I knew of the deal, an OEM company would
loose out on bonuses that Microsoft would award thier OEM purchasers
if they installed other operating systems on thier shipping PCs.
And because of the lack of OEM support, hardware manufacturers
would often not write drivers for thier hardware for the BeOS. This
greatly hurt the momentem of the BeOS to a point that the owners of
Be, Inc. had to shift focus to Internet Appliance devices instead of
PCs. This also didn't pan out and the IP of Be, Inc. was sold to
Palm recently.
Personally, I believe the settlement should prevent MS from
using licensing or monetary bonuses to sway OEMs into using only MS
products on thier PCs. It should also remove limitation of not
allowing any other operating system to dual boot with any MS
operating system. Thanks, Jonathan Tarbox
MTC-00032405
From: chester c fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department. of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
As a private citizen, this case should be closed and left as is.
It has cost quite a bit of money to work on this case both from the
government (representing the people), the taxpayers who pay the
government to perform, and the Microsoft Co. who are the defendants
of this case.
The settlement brought forth by the lower courts is a fair one.
It costs Microsoft Company to pay for its transgressions of the law
and the Plaintiffs should be happy. The public (taxpayers) are sick
and tired of this case dragging over the past two years.
This case has been deemed fair by the courts, let it be. In the
interests of justice for everyone concerned it is closed.
Private Citizen,
Chester Fong
801 Franklin St.
Oakland, Ca 94607
MTC-00032406
From: Les Thompson
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/7/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I wanted to let you know that I think the government made the
right choice in ending its litigation against Microsoft. Frankly,
the Justice Department never should have continued the action
against this company in the first place, and I am glad to see that
the matter is finally resolved.
Microsoft makes innovative products, and this is not an excuse
to break up this company. Microsoft has agreed to share information
with its competitors, but it will still be allowed to develop
products that will improve the technology industry. The settlement
is fair and was reached after extensive negotiations. A technical
review committee will ensure that Microsoft complies with the terms
of the settlement.
I believe you have made the right decision by settling with
Microsoft. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Les Thompson
Leslie Thompson
MTC-00032409
From: Mike Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In my opinion... the DOJ should back off a little.
I think the DOJ investigation is being driven by competitors of
Microsoft. I also think Microsoft's competitors are jealous because
they have been unable to duplicate Microsoft's success.
Do you remember what it was like to work with computers in the
70's and 80's??? Proprietary computers running proprietary software.
Hardware and software costs were outrageous and maintenance cost
weren't much better.
Software programs were not standardized and they didn't always
play nice with each other. The philosophy of big computer companies
seemed to be, ``Do it our way or don't do it''. Trying to
get different computer to work together was very frustrating (if not
impossible).
Microsoft could have played by the same rules as everybody else
(in the computer industry). Instead, today we have standards and
tightly integrated tools for developing and running software.
I do not think Microsoft is a Monopoly. They do not own the
hardware and software (unlike Apple and IBM), and there are many
operating systems to choose from. You can run several types of UNIX,
Macintosh, OS2, etc... Most people choose MSWindows. It is quite
nice to have many tools integrated into the MS operating system.
Because of its size it may be a good idea to keep an eye on
Microsoft, but in my opinion they should get a commendation for what
they have accomplished. Microsoft has made my job easier and more
productive.
Michael A Pritchard
Access Development
Director of IS, CIO
SLC, Ut
MTC-00032410
From: Mader, John
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 12:55pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
To whom it may concern
I feel that if the present settlement is allowed to stand
(Microsoft allowed to continue shipping their applications bundled
with their operating system) the consumer will have to pay the cost
of mitigation. With the clout that the operating system gives
Microsoft they will be able to move into any lucrative software
market after other firms develop those markets. This pattern is very
evident (i.e. Java, Palm, Sun). Eventually most of the other players
will be pushed out of the market, and Microsoft will be successful
in creating a barrier to the software market. This loss of
competition will not serve the interest of the American people. I
ask the court to break Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
John Mader
10228 Gatemont Circle
Elk Grove Ca. 95624
MTC-00032412
From: JudeAVettraino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:40pm
MTC-00032413
From: Cornel Sarosdy
To: DOJ
Date: 1/7/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Neither the DOJ nor the court should do nothing to contravene
the settlement already completed between DOJ and MSFT. The case of
the states still suing should be thrown out by the court. I have
used MSFT products for many years and have never thought to be taken
advantage of by MSFT.
Cornel Sarosdy
MTC-00032415
From: Eberhard Hafermalz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:05pm
Subject: Settlement with MicroSoft
Dear Sir/Madam
Following a request by Helmar Rudolph who is part of the
BeUnited Team and with whom a DOJ person has talked on January 4,
2002, I would like to submit my views on what is necessary to remedy
the damage done to the market for PC operating systems (OS) by
MicroSoft.
[[Page 29812]]
I am not a developer but a user of the BeOS, an alternative
operating system widely acclaimed for its potential as a desktop OS.
I would like to stress that the BeOS never has taken off as a widely
used OS on the PC market. Not because it does not have the
potential; there is publicly available numerous evidence to the
contrary. The BeOS has died because computer makers were not allowed
to pre-install this OS on their systems instead of or even alongside
a MicroSoft OS, thus precluding a broad distribution. It is a known
fact that computer makers declined the offer of Be, Inc., the maker
of BeOS, to ship their machines with the BeOS pre-installed because
this would invoke the respective punitive clauses in the licensing
agreement they had with MicroSoft.
Further, when installing a MicroSoft OS onto a computer already
equipped with the BeOS (or any other OS), the MicroSoft OS wipes the
so-called bootblock, resulting in the computer only booting into the
MicroSoft OS afterwards. As is well known, MicroSoft OSs are prone
to get unusable after a short period of time, requiring extensive
maintenance which more often than not is easiest done by re-
installing the whole system. This obviously invokes the bootblock
problem every time a re-install is conducted.
These two issues alone make it almost impossible for the average
computer user to (a) acquire a non-MicroSoft OS running computer,
and (b) maintain a dual-boot system where one of the OSs is a
MicroSoft one.
The remedy for issue (a) would be to disallow MicroSoft in clear
terms the use of any contractual clauses in their licensing
agreements that restrict the decision of the computer maker on what
OS, if any, to ship with the computer they manufacture.
The remedy for issue (b) is to disallow MicroSoft the
overwriting of the bootblock when Windows (or another MicroSoftware)
is installed. This is technically possible by giving the user the
choice which systems to boot into. Resolving issue (b) is in fact
complementary to issue (a) for the reasons explained above;
otherwise MicroSoft would be allowed to abuse their dominant market
position by simply accomplishing at a later point in time what they
have been denied at the manufacturer's stage: killing the competing
OS on the same computer.
In light of the MicroSoft strategy of the past, the above is not
the only remedy I think necessary because it would only create a
level playing field. MicroSoft would be allowed to maintain the
fruit of their previous unfair competition practice. Thus it appears
justified to require MicroSoft to cede proprietary information in
areas where it has acquired a de-facto monopoly by way of utilizing
advantages from their unfair competitive behavior.
Most importantly, this includes the ``office'' part of
the company's business. MicroSoft Office is the standard because
Office was pressed onto the consumer as ``part of
Windows'', which--as well as the Internet
Explorer--it is not. MicroSoft thus utilized the practice
described above to eliminate any competitor in this software
segment.
In order for rival makers of office software to compete they
need the information required to create translators, software add-
ons (``plug-ins'' in Windows-speak) that allow the
competing software to import from and export files to MicroSoft
Office (and other) formats. I would like to point out that in order
to accomplish this it is not required that MicroSoft open their
source code of Windows, MicroSoft Office, or any other software.
Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that it is not
only Windows, and MicroSoftware running on Windows, that needs to be
included in a settlement. MicroSoft is already showing the same
patterns of behavior as before in the market for handheld computers.
Also they are obviously trying to delay any remedial action against
the Windows monopoly in the desktop computer market until Windows is
no longer their main productline. Any settlement that is to create
and ensure a level playing field in the longer term not only needs
to remove the Windows monopoly but at the same time include any
future OS or, indeed, software MicroSoft might sell, be it
``.Net'' software, Windows CE/Stinger, or any other
product.
Finally, please revise your stance on the issue of MicroSoft's
``giving away freely'' computers, software, and service
for these to schools. This is no remedy but an opportunity. It will
create a new market for the company. These days MicroSoft's power to
abuse their position stems from the very fact that for most people
the term ``computer'' automatically means
``Windows'', i.e. MicroSoft. Letting MicroSoft ``make
good'' for their abusive behavior by opening one of the few
places where competing OS maker Apple still holds a better than
insignificant market share would mean, as we say in Germany, to try
to expel the devil with the Beelzebub.
The fate of innovation is at stake. Innovation cannot come from
a company that has been holding the monopoly for almost ten years
now. There is much better, much more innovative software out there
than MicroSoft one but it will never have a chance.
Unless MicroSoft is forced to give it that chance.
Thank you for your attention.
Faithfully yours
Eberhard Hafermalz
MTC-00032416
From: Pamela Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:56pm
Subject: Ending Clinton Anti-trust abuse
To whom it may concern:
You have my full support to do what is just and lawful to
correct any abuses allowed through the Clinton years. I know that
you will know just what to do.
Sincerely yours,
Pamela J. Schmidt
MTC-00032417
From: Dennis McKenna
To: sirs
Date: 1/7/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Sirs,
I undrestand that there is finally a settlement that has been
reached in the Microsoft case and I can only say this:
Why has it taken so long? This entire case was misguided. As an
American citizen I cannot believe that we do not have something
better to do with our tax dollars than investigate a fine,
innovative American company that provides excellent products for
reasonable prices to all. What would the world be like without
Microsoft's innovation? And what, I ask was their crime? That they
were so good at what they did that they had little competition. This
was a natural monopoly which sooner or later would have come up
against natural competition. It's not the role of government to step
in and smash such a company. We should be providing a favorable
environment for more US companies to step up their level of
innovation and become the next Microsofts. Please go ahead and get
this thing over with so we can close the book on this embarrassing
chapter of US history.
Sincerely,
Dennis McKenna
4207 Lenzgrove Lane
La Canada, CA 91011
MTC-00032418
From: Mary Jo Reddick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think it is a tough but fair settlement--for all parties
involved. Stop wasting the tax payers money-- competition is
wonderful for consumers like our family. We are an average working
family who appreciate good quality products at fair prices that
Microsoft has made available to us. We don't appreciate our hard
earned tax money being wasted on frivolous, vengeful lawsuits.
Enough already.
Donald and Mary Jo Reddick
Lancaster, CA
MTC-00032419
From: Michael Belcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/7/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Belcher
po box 5681
pahrump, nv 89041-5681
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29813]]
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 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,
Michael Belcher
MTC-00032420
From: Nelsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:43pm
Subject: It will be very good for the US economy if this case was
settled
It will be very good for the US economy if this case was settled
prior to the March hearings. The nine states that are holding out
are obviously trying to protect their companies in their own state.
e.g. Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems etc. They are putting themselves
above the consumer by delaying the settlement. All they want is
their pound of flesh, nothing more. It is getting so obvious that
hopefully the judge will see through it. It was a good thing the DOJ
made the effort to settle with Microsoft. The sooner it is over, the
better it will be for the stock market and the consuming public.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
Charles D Nelson
[email protected]
MTC-00032421
From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:47am
Subject: Microsoft
It is time to end the tyranny of the Clinton years! Get out of
the life of American business and taxpayers!! Why are you not
prosecuting true criminals like the Clintons and their accomplices
during their eight year crimes spree?
Jane Pehl
San Antonio, Texas
MTC-00032422
From: Rose Marie Lavelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:07am
Subject: for all the people,not the few
Let us move on with the things of today and not the pass,end it
now!
ROBERT M.LAVELLE
122 WHISPERING PINE DR.
PALM COAST FL. 32164
MTC-00032424
From: Steve Sawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
Greetings,
I have been involved in the IT industry since 1981. I watched
Microsoft, Apple and others work their way up the corporate ladder
with innovative ideas and hard work. They deserve much of the fruits
of their labor.
However, in Microsoft's case, they have been doing much more
harm than good to the consumer over the past several years. As a
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Business
Administration, I have watched with fascination the methods with
which Microsoft has eliminated competition and coerced vendors into
doing business Microsoft's way. All of this while their own products
continue to slide, in terms of quality and technical advancement.
The result is a two-edged sword. They spend time and resources
wiping out competitive ideas leaving little reason or incentive to
improve their own.
Then the Government and the courts comes along and
``endorses'' this approach by mandating toothless laws
with little or no enforcement. Microsoft is trying to do this with
Linux as well as others. Microsoft is a great company. Bill Gates
and crew should be applauded for what they have done for technology.
However, Microsoft has become a textbook example of why we have
rules governing monopolistic practices in this country. When Billy
Graham gets caught speeding he receives a ticket for speeding and he
pays the fine. Microsoft got caught and it is time to pay the fine.
Do America and Microsoft a favor and put a stop to the dark side
of Microsoft.
Thank you...
Steve
Steve Sawyer
Director of Internet Development
Market America, Inc.
[email protected]
MTC-00032425
From: Michael Sauber
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Sauber
219 Hidden Creek Lane
North Aurora, Il 60542
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29814]]
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,
Michael L. Sauber
MTC-00032426
From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charlotte Worden
MTC-00032427
From: Paula Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:37am
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.htn
I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse!
MTC-00032429
From: Ben Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:11pm
Subject: Clinton Era
I would like to see the end of the Clinton era abuse of anti-
trust legislation and court action. Microsoft has provided jobs to
multitudes of people and made millionaires of another group who
started out as workers.
Thank you,
Sue & Ben Hughes
Lindale, Texas
MTC-00032430
From: Bob (038) Caryl Horstmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:17pm
Subject: GOVT. SHAKEDOWN OF MICROSOFT
DEAR WHO EVER AT JUSTICE DEPT;
I BELIEVE THAT MICRO SOFT DOES NOT RATE A SHAKE DOWN BY THE
GOVT. JUST BECAUSE MICROSOFT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLICK WILLY. THE
REST OF THE WORLD IS WONDERING WHY WE SHAKE DOWN OUR BEST ACHIEVERS.
ROBERT HORSTMEIER, 112 STANTON STREET, DAVIS ILLINOIS,
61019-0183
[email protected]
MTC-00032432
From: ARTHUR HUPP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:17am
Subject: E-Mail Settlement
Enough is Enough!!!!! Let's let Mircosoft get on with being a
successful company and quit wasting the taxpayers money!!!!
Art Hupp
MTC-00032433
From: Craig Madsen
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/9/02 7:32am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Case
From: Craig Madsen
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: ``[email protected]''
Subject:Microsoft Antitrust Case
Dear DOJ, etc.,
I am writing to put my 2 cents worth about the antitrust case
against Microsoft Corp.
I feel like Microsoft is using their OS dominance to stifle
every bit of competition possible. I totally agree with the 9 states
that are fighting this thing to the bitter end. I also don't agree
with the current settlement at all. For Microsoft to spend a bunch
of money for the schools does absolutely nothing to stop them from
continuing to do what they have been doing for years--except
try to catch up with Apple, Inc. in the school battles!! I also
don't mind spending my tax dollars to do whatever is necessary to
make them pay for what they have already done.
We watched them ``give away'' a browser and all but
kill a competitor(s). Tomorrow they start giving away databases, and
before long, who knows? If there was a competitor to the government,
they would buy them, reduce the price on whatever they were selling
to nothing and kill them off too. Once dead, they can raise the
price back to whatever they need to.
Do I want Microsoft dead? Probably not, however, I want them to
have to use the same playing field as the rest of the businesses in
america that don't control 90% of the operating system business.
Break them up. Make
them give out their source code to anyone, so we could all make
products as quickly as them!
p.s.
I was trying to send this to: microsoft.atr@usdoj as
well, but my e-mail package didn't like this. Do you know how I can
get a copy of this to them?
Thanks,
Craig Madsen
(801)-961-3045
155 North 400 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1111
MTC-00032435
From: Mundlapati Jawahar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mundlapati Jawahar
4759 e culver st
phoenix, az 85008
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has
[[Page 29815]]
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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mundlapati Jawahar
MTC-00032436
From: LOUIS TURRO
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LOUIS TURRO
591 PALMER AVE
MAYWOOD, NJ 07607
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
LOUIS TURRO
MTC-00032437
From: Joseph O'Hara
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph O'Hara
17521 leafwood lane
Tustin, CA 92780
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29816]]
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,
Joe O'Hara
MTC-00032438
From: Dawn Case
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dawn Case
2436 Richmond Rd.
Woodward, OK 73801-7125
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dawn Case
MTC-00032439
From: Adrian J. Dekker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adrian J. Dekker
11929 Eagle Creek Cove
Ft. Wayne, IN 46814
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Adrian J. Dekker
MTC-00032440
From: Norm Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norm Lee
2709 Glendale Drive
loveland, co 80538
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29817]]
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 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,
Norm Lee
MTC-00032441
From: Carl Haywood
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Haywood
1515 Patrick court
Gardnerville, NV 89410-6645
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carl Haywood
MTC-00032442
From: carl king
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
carl king
1145 bordeau ct.
atlanta, ga 30338
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29818]]
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,
carl king
MTC-00032443
From: Richard Haugen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Haugen
740 Southgate
Fullerton, Ca 92832
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard L. Haugen
MTC-00032444
FROM: Ray Kraft
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/9/02 11:07am
SUBJECT: Opinion: microsoft settlement does not address problem
sufficiently
I would like to voice my concern over the proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Given that Microsoft has been founds
*guilty* of violating antitrust law and abusing its power in the
computer operating system market, I feel that the measures outlined
in the settlement will do little to redress this problem. In fact, I
believe that some proposed ``corrective'' measures (i.e.
those addressed at scholls) will in fact have just the opposite
effect, and will serve to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly position.
I would like to ask that more effective measures be proposed to
bring about the changes required to prevent Microsoft from
continuing to abuse its monopoly position.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Raymond H. Kraft, Ph.D.
Raymond Kraft, Ph.D. [email protected]
Associate Technical Fellow 425-657-1348
Applied Precision, Inc.
Issaquah Washington, USA
GnuPG Public Key Available: http://wwww.keyserver.net/en
MTC-00032445
From: Robert Hagaman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hagaman
13 Hibiscus Court
Homosassa, FL 34446
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert E. hagaman
MTC-00032446
From: Richard Swier
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Swier
6718 Paseo Castille
Sarasota, FL 34238
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 29819]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Rich Swier
MTC-00032447
From: Carlton Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carlton Miller
805 Skye Drive
Findlay, Oh 45840-4436
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carlton Miller
MTC-00032448
From: mike sanford
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mike sanford
1502 riley
lebanon, in 46052
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee
[[Page 29820]]
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,
mike sanford
MTC-00032449
From: Scott Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Clark
5127 W Riviera Ave
Banning, CA 92220
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Scott Clark
MTC-00032450
From: William Hoesen Sr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Hoesen Sr
1330 Meadowknoll
San Antonio, Tx 78227
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William H Hoesen Sr
MTC-00032451
From: Christine Amirault
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christine Amirault
106 Sprucewood Court
Bonaire, GA 31005-3017
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
[[Page 29821]]
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Christine B. Amirault
MTC-00032452
From: Emmett Williams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emmett Williams
1459 East Park Place
Chicago, Il 60637-1855
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Emmett Williams
MTC-00032453
From: Joseph Parrish
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Parrish
1417 Starboard Ct.
Orange Park, FL 32003-7268
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29822]]
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,
Joseph W. Parish
MTC-00032454
From: Mark Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:06pm
Subject: The current settlement with MicroSoft is bad for
competition and for the nation
Hello!
MicroSoft is evil. That is a given. Given all the lies they have
said in court over the years, you cannot trust anythng they say.
Thus, how can you trust the settlement?
MicroSoft was probably going to give 1 billion dollars to
schools anyways. Then the settlement says they have to, which
doesn't make any sense, because they were probably going to do it
anyways. MicroSoft has always tried to grab the educational
institutions, because when people graduate from high school or
college, they will stick with the software they know.
Thus:
1. They were already going to do it anyways.
2. It inteferes with Apple's ability to compete in the education
market.
MicroSoft is entirely evil and I would prefer, be destroyed. I
would like to see it get destroyed under a competitive market,
rather than physcial force. I like to win my battles fairly. Given
the current republican administration, please do what makes the most
sense for a competitive market, which you should understand since
you are republican, and just don't so stuff that benefits the rich
fat republicans/corporations who have no regard for our nation, just
their pocketbook. I want business to thrive for those who deserve
it, not those who are able to bribe/lie/cheat/steal their way into
power because they have a lot fo money.
Thanks!
Mark
MTC-00032455
From: John Schuck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:08 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Schuck
P.O. Box 1516
North Conway, NH 03860
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Schuck
MTC-00032456
From: Marian Hirsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marian Hirsh
96000 Overseas Hwy. F-9
Key Largo, FL 33037
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29823]]
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,
Marian Hirsh
MTC-00032457
From: Raymon Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymon Brown
790 Abbott Rd
Lexington, KY 40502-2930
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Raymon W Brown
MTC-00032458
From: Richard Graves
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Graves
125 Wildflower Lane
Chillicothe, OH 45601-4092
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard E. Graves
MTC-00032459
From: Keith Gallup
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Gallup
1707 Brandenbery Dr.
Surfside Beach, SC 29575-5478
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 29824]]
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 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,
Keith Gallup
MTC-00032460
From: Michael MacArthur
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael MacArthur
4720 Chevy Chase Dr. #406
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Michael K. MacArthur
MTC-00032461
From: Fred Reich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Reich
718 Danville Circle
Melbourne, FL 32904
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
[[Page 29825]]
Fred Reich
MTC-00032462
From: Frederick Hoover
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frederick Hoover
106 Miller Avenue
Sayreville, NJ 08872-1378
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Frederick M. Hoover
MTC-00032464
From: William Bryant
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Bryant
6681 Gasparilla Pines Blvd
Englewood, Fl 34224
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, Bill Bryant
W.P. Bryant, Jr.
MTC-00032465
From: jerry ellis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jerry ellis
180 NE IZETT ST. #A1
Oak Harbor, wa 98277
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29826]]
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 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,
jerry ellis
MTC-00032466
From: Donald Slater
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Slater
250 Galesburg Dr.
Lawrenceville, GA 30044
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald Slater
MTC-00032467
From: Kenneth Golden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Golden
1612 Harvard Woods Dr.2810
Brandon , Fl 33511-2095
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Kenneth Golden
MTC-00032468
From: gandamartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As two tax-paying citizens, we believe that the resources of the
Justice Dept can be put to better use than pursuing Microsoft.
[[Page 29827]]
Thank you,
Mr & Mrs Gene Martin
MTC-00032469
From: George Klages
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Klages
Rt 1 Box 1680
Fresno, TX 77545
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
George Klages
MTC-00032470
From: Dorothy Dixon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Dixon
3005 Cottonwood Court
Rowlett, TX 75088-5656
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dorothy Dixon
MTC-00032471
From: James Feild
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Feild
2240 Sharon Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29828]]
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
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,
J. David Feild
MTC-00032473
From: pankavichjm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I believe that the it is in the public interest to settle with
the Microsoft litigation. Personally, I find it hard to see how they
were in violation at all. As far as I am concerned I always had the
choice of using them or not.
However, I do believe that AOL is in some kind of violation in
this respect. Whenever I load a program that also offers AOL I
refuse the AOL but no matter I still get their program on my screen
and it does start to load. I also think that they are in violation
when they include free programs in cereals, etc. and send them
through the mail. They are bordering on being a nuisance.
Joan M. Pankavich
MTC-00032474
From: James Franke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Franke
238 Kilkenny Court
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James A. Franke
MTC-00032475
From: Mervin Waed
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mervin Waed
1 Margate Ct.
Lewes, DE 19958
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29829]]
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,
Mervin C. Ward
MTC-00032476
From: W.Lawrence Kimber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W.Lawrence Kimber
106 Elmwood Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052-2612
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies. Thank you for
this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
W.Lawrence Kimber
MTC-00032477
From:
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ALBERT HUDDY
3100 POINT CLEAR DR.
TEGA CAY, SC 29708
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
ALBERT D. HUDDY
MTC-00032478
From: Gregory Schopf
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Schopf
1096 Lincoln Ave
Fennimore, Wi 53809
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29830]]
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,
Gregory Schopf
MTC-00032479
From: Carol Iossa
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Iossa
R.R. 1 Box 3130
Jonesport, ME 04649-9709
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carol H. Iossa
MTC-00032480
From: John Oubre
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Oubre
3721 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John B. Oubre
MTC-00032481
From: Jacilyn Cox
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jacilyn Cox
6177 S.R. 258 S.W.
Newcomerstown, OH 43832
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29831]]
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 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,
Jacilyn Cox
MTC-00032482
From: Michael Burke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Burke
P. O. Box 2624
Grand Junction, CO 81502-2624
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Michael Burke
MTC-00032483
From: Mike Welling
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Welling
2208 Pennington Dr.
Arlington, TX 76014-3512
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
[[Page 29832]]
Sincerely,
Mike Welling
MTC-00032484
From: Martin Spielman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Martin Spielman
8 Monaghan Road
Edison, NJ 08817-4122
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Martin J Spielman
MTC-00032485
From: James Carpenter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Carpenter
4922 Del Rio Trl.
Wichita Falls, TX 76310-1431
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James A. Carpenter, Jr.
MTC-00032486
From: Barbara Robken
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Robken
2800 Andover Ave
Midland, TX 79705-3201
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29833]]
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 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,
Barbara Robken
MTC-00032487
From: HUGH M. FLYNN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:22 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HUGH M. FLYNN
3849 Lucas Ct.
Simi Valley, CA 93063
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
HUGH M. FLYNN
MTC-00032488
From: Donald Horneff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:35 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Horneff
606 State St
Tama, IA 52339-1927
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Don Horneff
MTC-00032490
From: Donald Leui
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Leui
HC 1 Box 55
Martin, SD 57551
[[Page 29834]]
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald Leui
MTC-00032491
From: Eileen Flynn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:48 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eileen Flynn
411 Seventh Ave
Indialantic, FL 32903-4337
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Eileen Flynn
MTC-00032492
From: Roger Daigger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roger Daigger
15814 Stagecoach Rd.
Magnolia, , Tx 77355
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29835]]
an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Roger & Dolores Daigger
MTC-00032493
From: Vivienne Erk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vivienne Erk
878 Macopin Road
West Milford, NJ 07480
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Vivienne Erk
MTC-00032494
From: Cliff Cofer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cliff Cofer
726 8th Street
West Des Moines, IA 50265-3636
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Cliff Cofer
MTC-00032495
From: Richard Taylor
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Taylor
4620 Tincher Road
Indy, IN 46221-3778
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of
[[Page 29836]]
this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard L. Taylor
MTC-00032496
From: Victoria Manes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victoria Manes
2528 N Champlain Ave
Tempe, AZ 85281
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Victoria Manes
MTC-00032497
From: Victoria Manes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victoria Manes
2528 N Champlain Ave
Tempe, AZ 85281
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29837]]
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,
Victoria Manes
MTC-00032498
From: Joan Walsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joan Walsh
5459 E 4th St
Long Beach, CA 90814-1925
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Joan Allen Walsh
MTC-00032499
From: Felix Knebel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Felix Knebel
17264 Tam O'Shanter Dr.
Poway, CA 92064-1323
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Felix Knebel, Jr.
MTC-00032501
From: Ralph Hudson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Hudson
116 Jordan Circle
Garner, NC 27529-7953
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29838]]
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 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,
Ralph Hudson
MTC-00032502
From: Jim Poulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:38pm
Subject: Retired USAF SWBell union memeber & MS Stockholder
Is our government stupid?
Quit screwing with the brightest light in our economy.
If any other nation in the world had Microsoft in their country
they would back them to the limit. Only because our country allows
foreign lobbyists and because we have so many other multi-national
companies bribing our officials do we have this problem. Support the
USA and our workers and KNOCK IT OFF!
James Poulton
USAF (retired) MSgt
214-902-8996
MTC-00032503
From: Robert Arnold Isley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Arnold Isley
2500 Bangor Ct
Snellville, GA 30078
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
R. Arnold Isley
MTC-00032504
From: Steven Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Brown
504 Sleepy Meadow Drive
MOUNT VERNON, mo 65712
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29839]]
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,
Steven Brown
MTC-00032505
From: Howard George
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard George
5305 Water Point Drive
Memphis, tn 38141
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Howard George
MTC-00032506
From: Charles Boyette
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Boyette
274 Steens Road
Steens, MS 39766
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charles E. Boyette
MTC-00032507
From: MR.AND MRS.ROBERT NELSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MR.AND MRS.ROBERT NELSON
7582 HICKAM AVE.
LAS VEGAS, NV 89129
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29840]]
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 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,
NELSON,ROBERT H. AND MARY L.
MTC-00032508
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern.
I generally do not write E-mails on the behalf of big business.
But I find this whole Microsoft saga disturbing. I do not agree with
the idea that Microsoft should be punished or broken up. I think
that Microsoft is an industry leader, in part because of its
aggressive and forward thinking business practices, vital for
competition in a very competitive market. I for one am thankful for
what Microsoft has done. I think that the tremendous advances in
computer technology can be attributed to Microsoft.
I can assure you that if another company comes out with a
product that I read about or try and find it that I like it better
than Microsoft's version, I would certainly buy the product that I
liked.
If Microsoft feels that this latest judgment is fair, then I
would have to agree.
Thank you for your time. John Horlick
MTC-00032509
From: Edward Evanko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Evanko
1885 Military Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Edward P. Evanko
MTC-00032510
From: Raymond Bauer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Bauer
13763 Eureka Drive
Magalia, CA 95954
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29841]]
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
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,
Dr. Raymond Bauer
MTC-00032511
From: Robert & June Stone
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert & June Stone
28120 Avenida Maravilla
Cathedral City, CA 92234-3771
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert & June Stone
MTC-00032512
From: John Green
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Green
2125 Elanita Dr.
San Pedro, CA 90732-4433
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Green
MTC-00032513
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement of the M$ anti trust action represents a
complete failure of the current laws to protect consumers &
ensure a level playing field for competition.
Microsoft failed to abide by the origonal judgement against
them, has clearly continued their anti competitive behaviour and has
now taken that behaviour to even higher levels with the release of
Windows XP.
[[Page 29842]]
The issues with XP are far wider & more serious than any
previous behaviour & this behaviour is apparently now being
condoned by this settlement which provides M$ with a platform to
further promote their products over any alternatives.
Within Australia the pricing issues alone are beyond belief. US
Court evidence indicated 50% overcharging of consumers, with
exchange rates taken into account the overcharging in Australia has
been 200% and now with XP, the removal of Domain login from the
basic/home version of the operating system, small business will be
forced to move from a $A400 operating system to an $A660 operating
system. Some 80% of small business is affected & the cost
worldwide will run into $USBillions. The pricing of the M$ component
of any PC price has risen in a market of dramatically increasing
volumes, the opposite of normal market behaviour where shipment
volumes increase.
This has been possible due to the monopoly position. In some
cases the M$ component is now 50% of PC manufacturing Price. There
is also an element of using US PC manufacturers to engage in product
dumping into the international market to the detriment of
international PC assemblers. The court evidence indicates some US
manufacturers purchased NT4 Operating System at $US20 where local
manufaturers in Australia were being charged $A320 ($US160) The
schools concerned could utilise free open source software rather
than waste money on M$ software & thus free up resources for
additional hardware or teaching resources.
Throughout the current case M$ has been clearly in contempt of
the courts in their actions which have been designed to ensure that
it was not possible to recall or change products in the field with
the browser (as distinct from the HTML rendering engine &
communications utilities) embedded in the Operating Systems. The
W98SE & Windows ME releases along with various Browser updates
have been dubbed ``The DOJ releases'' with good reason.
This case has been a classic example of how a Corporation can use
delaying tactics in the courts to their advantage & profit from
those tactics.
This proposal for settlement should be withdrawn and a regime
which ensures an open standards interface approach is adopted with
full disclosure of all API's for application services & network
services put in it's place. Penalties which reflect the magnitude of
the crime and recover the revenue improperly gained by M$ during the
case should also be put in place In addition to the above a public
list of areas in which people believe M$ has/is acting improperly
should be initiated. There are numerous areas in which this has been
the case & the current case has only brushed the surface. A
public list/discussion board is the only way in which the technical
details of how M$ has acted anticompetitively will ever be fully
disclosed or determined.
Competition law will not be treated with any respect by
Corporations unless this settlement is revised
Wayne Carruthers
MTC-00032514
From: Francis Bittel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 4:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Bittel
2471 Jennifer Drive
Poland, Oh 44514
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Francis J Bittel
MTC-00032515
From: Tom Friedman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Friedman
25 Whispering Spring Dr.
Pisgah Forest, , NC 28768-9502
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29843]]
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,
Tom Friedman
MTC-00032516
From: Bob White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob White
9774 Hidden Cross
San Antonio, TX 78250-4817
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bob White
MTC-00032517
From: Christopher Perdue
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christopher Perdue
1509 Carmel Road
Charlotte, NC 28226-5013
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Christopher Perdue
MTC-00032518
From: Kevin Sipes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Sipes
2602 camarie Ave
Midland, TX 79705
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 29844]]
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 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,
Kevin Sipes
MTC-00032519
From: George F Kovacs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George F Kovacs
255 E. Baltimore St.
Taneytown, MD 21787-2235
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
[email protected]
MTC-00032520
From: Rick Rund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rick Rund
POB 1409 260 No. Gulling
Portola, Ca 96122-1409
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29845]]
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,
Rick Rund
MTC-00032521
From: Diane Sosebeee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Sosebeee
103 McMillan St.
Evergreen, AL 36401
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Diane S. Sosebee
MTC-00032522
From: Mike Strain
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Strain
30665 Old Hwy 395
Escondido, ca 92026
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mike Strain
MTC-00032523
From: Tracy Stone
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tracy Stone
101 Savannah Drive
Matthews, NC 28105-6539
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 29846]]
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 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,
Tracy Stone
MTC-00032524
From: David Zickefoose
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Zickefoose
10314 Washington Drive
Omaha, NE 68127
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
David C. Zickefoose
MTC-00032526
From: Delmonte, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:18am
First of all thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
My main focus is the pattern that Microsoft has exhibited over
the 15 years that I have been involved in the IT arena.
The first negative experience was one which happened with a
company called Stacker, in which it was proved that Microsoft had
illegally used their file compression scheme, by the time the issue
was settled the company no longer was viable and in fact is no
longer in existence.
The next example is the competition between Microsoft and
Netscape and how in a variety of actions which I am sure you are
familiar made the company loose most of it's relevance in the PC
arena, it still has a presence in the Linux arena, but that may
change as well depending on how Microsoft handles that or is allowed
to handle that arena in the future.
The main problem I see is one of ethical behavior, they do push
the limits and go beyond as in the Stacker case in every area that
they see is important, and one may think that this is how business
is done, the stronger survive. But when it is at the cost of
innovation by individuals or small concerns, which Microsoft is
eliminating more and more due to it's size and influence, I think
that the American public and entrepreneurs have lost incredible
opportunities due to what I consider predatory behavior.
The level of excitement due to opportunities available to
individuals in the 1980's was palpable across the whole Silicon
Valley in which I worked at the time, as the 1990's approached this
level of entrepreneurship decreased steadily.
Some of it is due to the maturing of the industry, some of it
due to standardization all of which are good. But much of it has to
do with Microsoft getting involved in so many areas of the personal
computer arena that it left less and less space for the smaller less
financially endowed institutions to contribute to the progress of a
field that still has wonderful opportunities if this level of
entrepreneurship is allowed to flourish again.
Unfortunately much of this has been squelched in the US, but
with the arrival of Linux and what it can contribute and has
contributed from many areas across the globe there is some activity
in this entrepreneur-friendly environment that has received a lot of
focus in the last couple of years.
I would suggest that the American technologists would be much
more interested in putting an effort again into the IT arena if a
more favorable environment was fostered by curtailing some of the
more obvious actions that Microsoft has taken, and I am sure that
that venture capitalists would support this effort since the rewards
are still very high.
What I would suggest is to split the company into separate
entities in all senses, applications and operating systems are two
of the ones that have been suggested.
And if Microsoft wants to enter a new arena in the computer
industry (and that has to be based on a well-defined criteria) then
the amount of money they can put in that concern cannot be more than
the best financed institution that is already present in that arena.
If none are in existence a criteria for that has to be established
as well, so that other can compete on equal footing.
Once that concern is established Microsoft cannot contribute any
further funds, otherwise it would perpetually be competing in an
arena even it's efforts were not successful, creating an artificial
concern and hampering competitiveness.
If the company failed they should not be permitted to enter that
arena for a pre-
[[Page 29847]]
specified amount of time, to allow those who had good ideas to
flourish without the annoyance of having another company
artificially affecting the competitive environment to that specific
arena.
I understand that this may have a short-term (1-2 years)
effect on the economy, but the long-term effects would be a healthy,
creative, growing and dominating industry for the US.
Tom Delmonte
WorldCom--Revenue & Segment Reporting
E-mail: [email protected]
Voice: (719) 535-1562
vnet: 622-1562
MTC-00032527
From: Michelle Alley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michelle Alley
27720 Riverwalk Way
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Michelle Alley
MTC-00032528
From: Robert Nuzum
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Nuzum
2236 Gulf to Bay Blvd. #332
Clearwater, fl 33765
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert Nuzum
MTC-00032529
From: Sam Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is definitely time to put a stop to this nonsense about
Microsoft!
Sam Heath
[email protected]
MTC-00032530
From: Pat Suter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pat Suter
30 West Gibbons St.
Linden, NJ 07036-4052
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs
[[Page 29848]]
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 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,
Pat Suter
MTC-00032531
From: Thomas E. Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Putting this Reno farce behind us is long overdue.
MTC-00032532
From: Milton Becker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Milton Becker
335 Schooner Ave
Edgewater, Fl 32141
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Milton A Becker
MTC-00032533
From: Francis Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I have tried to follow the Microsoft case as much as possible
and I am appalled with the DoJ for settling that easily. the law
states that Microsoft broke the law, why does the punishment not fit
the crime. As an individual on the street I start drawing my own
conclusions. Did Microsoft pay off somebody etc? When IBM was found
guilty of monopoly, they were dealt with accordingly and they could
not profit from their business.
When Southwestern Bell (I forget what it was called) was a
monopoly, it was dealt with too Why is the DoJ afraid of dealing
with Microsoft. Wrong is wrong.
The proposed settlement is an insult to the ``poor under
privileged schools.'' I could understand if Microsoft offered
to make all these schools top of the art with new technology/
hardware etc. But to offer outdated hardware/software!, all they are
doing is using the schools as trash cans, because they have nowhere
to put their junk. ``give it to them under privileged schools,
they should be grateful'', and the worst part the DoJ accepted
this. This is the United States for pete's sake. we are supposed to
offer justice for all. Stop this atrocious settlement.
I use Windows software on my pc and I appreciate the software,
it is good and to most extent reliable and easy to use (if you know
what you are doing). But I do not think that should get Microsoft
special favors/treatment. DoJ act like a department of Justice and
not like somebody's lacky.
You read almost everyday that Microsoft is doing something bad
here or there. This will continue until someone says ``The Buck
Stops Here Microsoft, enough is enough''. A good example is a
simple poll. They tried to rig a poll so that it looks like people
want Microsoft, having people voting multiple times , how low can a
company go to wipe out competition. Microsft cannot stand that
people like something else other than Microsoft, they are now like
dictator governments ``Its our way or noones''.
DoJ clean up your act and do the right thing.
THANK YOU
FRANCIS
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00032534
From: EVAN LEE
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/10/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ Anti-Trust Division:
I am deeply troubled by the recent DOJ decision to settle the
anti-trust case against
[[Page 29849]]
Microsoft. Guilty or not, Microsoft is the most dominating presence
in the operating system and the software market today. For years
they have bought out or pushed out competition not by superioriety
of the software, but by money and lawyers.
Microsoft does not promote fair competetion, their goal seem to
be eliminate all competetion. Every new technology or company comes
up with new and cheaper ways that benefits customers have been
targed by Microsoft as enemies. I do not believe behaviors such as
this will be curbed by this settlement, if anything else this gives
Microsoft more confidence to destroy their competitors, because
what's the worst that will happen? a slap on the hand to microsoft.
What will this settlment accomplish? by making microsoft
providing computers to poor schools in the country? How will this
punish microsoft? All they have to do is buy in mass quantity
refurbished computers which manufactures are gladly to get rid of.
The software of course will be windows. This will not punish
microsoft, instead it helps them breaking in to previously Mac
dominated education market share. This settlement is not punishing
Microsoft, it is helping them gaining publicity and market share.
It is amazing to me that this cased started hard and heavy in
the late 90s when microsoft had no presence in washington. but it
ended with less of a whimper after microsoft dumped millions if not
billions of dollars in to washington's political arena. I believe
this is the wrong decision by the DOJ to settle with Microsoft, and
their monopoly will only get worse... I fear the day that Microsoft
conquers all.
Evan Lee
Disturbed Computer User
MTC-00032536
From: Marty French
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marty French
2300 Bristol Dr.
Carrollton, Tx 75006
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Marty French
MTC-00032537
From: Byron Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
I support the settlement of the Microsoft Suit. As a person who
works in the computer industry, I would encourage this settlement.
V/R Byron K. Major
MTC-00032538
From: Paul Hilliar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 attorney' 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,
Paul Hilliar
2511 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20009-2801
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032539
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I don't believe the public is served when judicial oversite or
legislation is made to stiffle companies that create technology to
the degree that Microsoft has. The main reason we have this
predicament in my opinion, is that ``weakened''
competitors like AOL, SUN Micro, et.al., and their legal teams
purposly sought remedy through the courts as a viable competitive
marketing tactic. Unfortunately for the consumer, these ``do-
gooders'' have influenced the justice system to prosecute
Microsoft for being successful. The band-wagon effect in this is
huge with lobyists, lawyers and those ``weakened''
competitors all reaping employment and huge sums of money. And then
there is Microsoft, trying to exist by selling what we all agree are
a great series of products addressing consumer preferences and
providing what the market demands, and being punished for being
successful at it. RTP.
MTC-00032540
From: Erick Gustafson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29850]]
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federal governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Erick Gustafson
910 Constitution Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002-6202
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032541
From: Bob Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Bob Walker
420 Seward Sq. SE
Washington, DC 20003-1112
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032542
From: Ross Marzolf
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Ross Marzolf
419 19th Avenue E., #6
Seattle, WA 98112-5344
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032543
From: Jennifer Hamann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Jennifer Hamann
5891 1st Street, North
Arlington, VA 22203-1101
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032544
From: Bud Thomas
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Bud Thomas
6 Edward Dr
Orchard Park, NY 14127-3957
[[Page 29851]]
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032545
From: Rob Jordan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Rob Jordan
1301 S. Monroe St.
Arlington, VA 22204-4220
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032546
From: Andrew Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Andrew Smith
1953 Columbia Pike, Apt. 42
Arlington, VA 22204-6149
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032547
From: Andrew McElroy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Andrew McElroy
710 N. Oakland St.
Arlington, VA 22203-2223
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032548
From: John Baitinger, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Baitinger, Sr.
P.O.Box 171
Alloway, NJ 08001-0171
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive
products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
John S. Baitinger, Sr.
MTC-00032549
From: stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29852]]
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,
stephen Flaherty
801 South Pitt Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032550
From: Robert Pratt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Anit-Trust issue settlement
Dear Ms. Heese:
Your support of the recent settlement of the long-running
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation is important.
The settlement is fair and 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.
The opposition to the settlement from a small group of political
bodies is nothing more than a power-grab and is not in the interest
of the American tax payer.
Respectfully,
Robert Pratt
PO Box 5282
Lubbock, TX 79408-5282
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032551
From: Margaret Schlosser
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/10/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am non-plussed at the supposed ``remedy'' for
Microsoft wrong-doing. The ``remedy'' is to enforce that
Microsoft products are given even MORE exposure than previously??
This would give Microsoft an unfair advantage in the National School
System.
Microsoft is not, nor ever will be, remorseful in any way.
Indeed, the same practices (proprietary) practiced previously, were
practiced throughout the Anti-Trust process.
By cloaking it's every pronouncement with ``for the good of
the Consumers'' Microsoft sought to influence everyone that any
judgement against Microsoft was anti-consumer and bad for consumers.
With the huge market share enjoyed by Microsoft, it's even MORE
incumbent upon them to play fair.
This news indicates that Microsoft still seeks to impose it's
standards over those of any other company by foul means, rather than
fair.
In December, Java was more popular than .Net for building Web
services, according to a ZDNet UK poll, but weeks later the position
had dramatically reversed; investigation revealed just what lengths
Microsoft will go to to promote its products
Microsoft's .Net Web services technology appeared to experience
a sudden massive boost in popularity over its rival Java, according
to a poll run by ZDNet UK.
By 21 December, more than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5
percent), said they planned to deliver some applications by Web
services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly
half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent said
they planned to use Microsoft .Net--less than the figure (23.5
percent) planning to use neither.
But by the time the poll closed, on 5 January, the position had
dramatically changed, with three quarters of voters claiming to be
implementing .Net. This apparent sudden change of heart over the
Christmas period appears to be the result of a concerted campaign
within Microsoft.
ZDNet UK logs reveal rather obvious vote rigging, and prove that
it originated from within Microsoft:
A very high percentage of voters are from within the
microsoft.com domain.
There is a very high incidence of people attempting to cast
multiple votes, even though the poll script blocked out most
attempts at multiple voting. The one that wins the prize made 228
attempts to vote. This person was from within the microsoft.com
domain.
I submit that the following is as true today as it was in the
beginning of the Anti-Trust case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/07/opinion/07FRI1.html
The brunt of the case against Microsoft entailed coercive
behavior by the company to force Internet service providers and
computer makers to favor Microsoft's browser over Netscape's.
Competitors are now complaining of similar behavior by Microsoft to
use its Windows monopoly to immunize its newer products from real
competition. Just last week European Union antitrust regulators
initiated an inquiry into these claims.
In its announcement yesterday, the Justice Department appeared
to acknowledge the urgent need for a change in Microsoft's conduct.
In addition to calling for ``prompt, effective and certain
relief for consumers,'' it said it would use a period of
expedited discovery to ``investigate development in the
industry since the trial concluded, and to evaluate whether
additional conduct-related provisions are necessary.''
Microsoft has a track record of showing little appreciation in
its business dealings for the magnitude of the legal rulings against
it. That is all the more reason for the government to remain on the
case as the company aggressively seeks to become as dominant a
platform for all Internet services as it currently is for PC
software.
There is much more evidence out there..the DOJ should make every
effort to right wrongs in this case. Please don't short-cut this
issue due to the war on Terrorism.
M.Schlosser
Bethany Beach, DE
MTC-00032552
From: Elizabeth Bookspan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Elizabeth Bookspan
8620 114th Ave NE
Kirkland, WA 98033-5719
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032553
From: Jason Hagglund
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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
[[Page 29853]]
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,
Jason Hagglund
5907 N. Wall
Spokane, WA 99205-6441
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032554
From: Betty Ramey
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Betty Ramey
4760 NW 63rd Terrace
Bell, FL 32619-3823
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032555
From: Harry Hintz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Harry Hintz
5306 Overtop Lane
Raleigh, NC 27613-5550
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032556
From: Sean Comery
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Sean Comery
630 F St
533
San Diego, CA 92101-6310
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032557
From: David Palmer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
David M. Palmer
3515 Mill Creek Road
The Dalles, OR 97058-1237
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032558
From: James Short
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29854]]
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,
James Short
8260 53rd Ave W. #305
Mukilteo Wa., WA 98275-2672
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032559
From: Vivian and William Henderson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Vivian and William Henderson
PO Box 2133
5230 SE Sedgwick Rd
Port Orchard, WA 98366-0769
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032560
From: Gerald Vinella
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running ntitrust 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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Gerald Vinella
1330 Noah Rd
N. Brunswick, NJ 08902-1321
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032561
From: Leona Bochantin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leona Bochantin
5373 Butler Hill Estates Dr.
St Louis, Mo 63128-3721
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Leona Bochantin
MTC-00032562
From: Geri and Bob Modrell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts
[[Page 29855]]
Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Geri and Bob Modrell
11014 19th Avenue SE PMB 59
Everett, WA 98208-7600
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032563
From: Stephen Koehler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Koehler
2703 Sycamore Woods Ct
Louisville, KY 40241-6293
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Stephen R. Koehler
MTC-00032564
From: Gary Evenson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Gary Evenson
6314 40th st nw
Gig Harbor, WA 98335-7245
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032565
From: Peggy Venable
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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. pOnce
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Peggy Venable
13419 Wisterwood
Austin, TX 78729-1941
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032566
From: Stony Rushing
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29856]]
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,
Stony Rushing
3810 Belk Mill Rd
Wingate, NC 28174-8760
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032567
From: Erthel Hines
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Erthel Hines
405 Meadowood Street
Greensboro, NC 27409
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
Respectfully,
Erthel Hines
MTC-00032568
From: Wes Alexander
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Wes Alexander
5248 Manitu Ct
Lilburn , GA 30047-5331
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032569
From: Charles L. Kaufman
To: attorney general
Date: 1/11/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello--
I am writing because I believe that the deal arranged by the
U.S. government and Microsoft is a BAD deal for all us consumers.
Microsoft is a criminal company and is a danger to U.S commerce
and the future of computing.
I believe it would be in the best interest if Microsoft was
broken up into different competing companies.
F. Frank
24200 Sw Yew Wood Ln
Hillsboro, OR 97123
MTC-00032570
From: Bill Turenne
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 5:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
[[Page 29857]]
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Bill Turenne
814 C Jefferson Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-4255
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032571
From: Jennifer Garcia
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 5:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Jennifer Garcia
PO Box 1090
Delray Beach, FL 33447-1090
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032572
From: Kenneth Sheffert
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Kenneth Sheffert
24 Mill Rd
Hampton, NH 03842-2237
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032573
From: Heath Heikkila
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Heath Heikkila
1301 S Monroe St
Arlington, VA 22204-4220
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032574
From: Danielle Doane
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Danielle Doane
613 Constitution Ave, NE
Washington, DC 20002-6035
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032575
From: tom luther
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in grudging support of the recent settlement of the
long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Reno's
abuse of the DoJ as a political tool should rightfully embarrass
supporters of so called anti-trust legislation. It is impossibly
broad and famous for the political process used to select victims.
Microsoft is only the latest example of what is wrong with the DoJ,
DC, and the anti-trust laws that cripple the economy. I am
disappointed that some have decided to further pursue this baseless
case. But I am certainly not surprised at their avarice, or their
willingness to use bad law to line their pockets.
The settlement makes a mockery of the DoJ and american justice
in general. The ultimate irony of the ``settlement'' is
that Microsoft has now secured a monopoly on public school children.
Institutionalizing a
[[Page 29858]]
monopoly is a comic and fitting end to the litigation.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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. But that wasn't
the point.
The point is that Microsoft now pays millions annually in homage
to its (now acknowledged) master in DC. It doesn't pay to succeed
too well in America. And it's particularly poor practice to not even
pay lip service, much less direct graft, to the DC mob. Microsoft
made all these mistakes.
Once again, thank you for settling this unfortunate lawsuit.
Good luck restoring your reputation.
Respectfully,
tom luther
411 cutler street
raleigh, NC 27603-1921
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032576
From: Michael Williams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 going beyond fair to all except Microsoft. 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.
Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them
with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the
high-technology market and that their products increased our
familiarity with the Internet. It's about time our government stop
harrassing the producers in this country and go back to its one
legitimate function: protecting our citizens and their property.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael Williams
6271 N Ponderosa Way
Parker , CO 80134-5613
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032577
From: Chadwick Creamer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Chadwick Creamer
19812 10th PL W
Lynnwood, WA 98036-7101
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032578
From: Thomas and Marybeth Hauck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
We are 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 we applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, we are 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
ourselves 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,
Thomas and Marybeth Hauck
605 Fearrington Post
Pittsboro,, NC 27312-8523
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032579
From: Richard Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Richard Walker
7444 Shadowwood CT NE
Keizer, OR 97303-7853
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032580
From: Tearle Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tearle Lee
5410 Stillwater Dr
New Orleans, LA 70128
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 29859]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Tearle Lee
MTC-00032581
From: Marcia Stevenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marcia Stevenson
94 Midway Dr.
McKees Rocks, PA 15136-1556
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Marcia L. Stevenson
MTC-00032582
From: Mark Potter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 urge you to settle this unfortunate lawsuit
against a successful and innovative company. While states seek to
erase their budget deficits through suing Microsoft, the economy
suffers and more people are laid off from work.
Respectfully,
Mark Potter
3309-B Parkford Manor Terrace
Silver Spring, MD 20904-6145
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032583
From: Denny DeVries
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29860]]
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federal governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Denny DeVries
603 Juanita Ct
Lady Lake, FL 32159-9268
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032584
From: Judith Murray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judith Murray
1736 Marlyn Rd
Fort Myers, FL 33901
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Judith Murray
MTC-00032585
From: Herbert Stevenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Stevenson
602. Fifth Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Herbert L. Stevenson
MTC-00032586
From: Vin Mulhern
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/12/02 6:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vin Mulhern
15 Nelson Street
Farmingdale, NY 11735-4225
January 12, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 29861]]
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Vin Mulhern
MTC-00032587
From: A Colon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/12/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A Colon
12441 NW 15th Street #307
Sunrise, Fl 33323
January 12, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
A Colon
MTC-00032588
From: Dennis Kleindorfer
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/13/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
It is my opinion that most of charges against Microsoft are very
minor and are the type of things companies do to grow there business
if there competitors can't compete they whine and sue if things
worked that way Studebaker would still be in business if they were
protected like Apple Computer in the Education Market!
But the bottom line is certain states and individuals drum up
these charges so they can as Robinhood rob the rich!
There would be no such suits if Microsoft didn't have billions
in cash! And companies do to weak products or bad management are
protected by the goverment cry to the goverment that they need
protection and money from there more sophisticated competitor
Microsoft!
Sincerely,
Dennis Kleindorfer
601 East New york Ave.
DeLand, FL 32724-6042
MTC-00032589
From: jjderrig
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/13/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
I have always believed anti-trust laws were primarily to protect
the consumer. As a consumer, I have not been hurt at all. Most of
the problems mentioned in the press during this litigation, I have
personally solved with little difficulty. I have never heard of the
name of the consumer who has been harmed.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More
extreme critics complain that the remedies do not address products
that were not even part of the case.
[[Page 29862]]
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also
rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an order moving
forward would be difficult to sustain given the court
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of
Justice claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
John F. Derrig
301--128th AVE NE
Bellevue, WA. 98005-3222
425-454-7035
MTC-00032590
From: Margaret Schlosser
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/13/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft attempts to affect the trial
Having just become aware of the email message by which Microsoft
hopes to sway the Department of Justice--via the public comment
period, I certainly hope that anyone analyzing the public comments
takes this underhanded activity into account.
For several months, I have been subscribed to (spying upon?) a
mailing list called ``Freedom to Innovate''. The name of
the list is particularly amusing since the purpose of the mailing
list is to promote the position of Microsoft in various anti-trust
motions in our courts.
I have copied today's ``Freedom to Innovate'' message
below. Aside from its humorous aspect, it includes information about
how to submit public comment to the Department of Justice. So, if
you have opinions on how Microsoft has affected your ``freedom
to innovate'', you may wish to correspond with the Justice
department on the topic.
-- joe
-=-=-=- Microsoft message follows -=-=-=-
A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsofts competitors,
the federal government and nine states finally reached a
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry
and the American economy.
However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is
more important than ever.
The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the public
interest.
Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
Dont let these special interests defeat the public interest.
-=-=-= End Microsoft message -=-=-=
This is but a small sample of the unsavory practices Microsoft
employs. If the proposed settlement takes place, Microsoft will have
won and at the same time solidified it's position and be well on the
way to it's goal of complete domination of anything having to do
with computers or the Internet. Please do not let this settlement be
for nothing, which it will if it proceeds as now projected. Should
the DOJ in the future, find that the presently proposed settlement
did more harm than good (as I am firmly convinced it will) it will
be far too late for any rememdy and future anti-trust actions will
have been forever compromised. The Microsoft 'model'' will
encourage other companies to follow their lead and so escape any
``punishment'.
Just one question--I wish someone could explain to me just
WHAT so-called 'innovations'' Microsoft has ever been
responsible for? Microsoft merely adapts others work and proceeds to
make it Microsoft specific, thereby denying use of it to others by
attempting to make its version the defacto default.
Margaret Schlosser
Bethany Beach, Delaware
MTC-00032591
From: Ned and Suzy Cheely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:33pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
Please settle this case and get onto more serious problems! We,
the taxpayers, through the government, have spent enough time and
money on this case. It is time to move on. Please support the
settlement as proposed by Microsoft and the Bush Administration. We
do.
Thank you.
Suzy Cheely
9 Harrop Parrish
Williamsburg, VA 23188
MTC-00032592
From: Robert Smith Jr.
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/13/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29863]]
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,
Robert Smith Jr.
215 Rouen Ct.
Wilmington, NC 28412-3391
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032593
From: Lois McMahan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/13/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Lois McMahan
12001 SE Roper Lane
Olalla, WA 98359-9708
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032594
From: Courtney Phillips
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/13/02 8:32pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
61 Lynn Court
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Early in last November, the Department of Justice and the
Microsoft Corporation came to an agreement in the three-year-old
antitrust lawsuit. I believe that the terms of the settlement are
reasonable, and I am therefore lending my support to the agreement
that puts an end to this lengthy and extremely costly litigation.
Microsoft did not get just a slap on the wrist, as evidenced by
the fact, that the company has been forced to turn over substantial
portions of its intellectual property to its competitors. Microsoft
will share with its competitors, information about how Windows
interacts with other programs and will not retaliate against vendors
who sell or use non-Microsoft products. Furthermore, as part of the
settlement, Microsoft will be supervised by a technical committee,
consisting of three software engineers who will test Microsoft's
compliance with certain aspects of the agreement.
I understand also, that other terms were agreed upon that were
never even an issue in the antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft, however,
accepted those terms based on the view that the United States
economy is far more important than pursuing arguments over less
significant details.
I completely support the settlement, and would like to go on
record as doing so.
Sincerely,
Courtney G. Phillips
MTC-00032595
From: Stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
stephen Flaherty
801 South Pitt Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032596
From: Vhon Montefrio
To: Judge Kollar Kotelly
Date: 1/14/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hi Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
Good day to you Judge!
I am sending you this email to comment something with regards to
the controversial Tunney Act in which passed by the US Congress.
This is particularly the Microsoft monopoly issue.
My name is Mr. Andrebon G. Montefrio, Jr., from Philippines. I
heard that you are the Independent Judge who will review and approve
the Justice Departments proposed agreement.
I believe as a consumer of a product, it is important to have at
least two or more options to choose of what to buy or consume. For
example, a consumer wanted to buy a car, choosing between five
different cars would help him arrive at his decision more handily.
As for me, if I wanted to purchase a Computer System, I should have
many choices of brands or models before I will buy it. Of course it
depends on my budget, preferences, system performance and other
factors.
With Microsofts case, I think a lot of many software companies
were hurt by it. Microsoft has been into monopoly since the start.
And it became more obvious now. With the current OS, which is
Windows XP, software applications embedded with it made the other
software manufacturers life gloomy. With its many features such as
the Media Player, Internet Browser, Utilities, and many more,
competition with other companies is never that stiff. What happens
now to Netscape? How about the other software makers? All will
eventually close down. And who is in the losing end? Not just the
other software companies but also the consumers as well. Consumers
will not be able to try and test alternative software or even
Operating Systems. Other technologies will not be available in the
market because no one will try them anymore. What for? Windows XP
has it all already. Much more, PC companies would be using the new
Microsoft OS for sales growth. So the more PCs will be purchased,
the more the Microsoft users there will be. The more the monopoly
there will be.
What I am trying to say is, Microsoft should play the field
fairly. Give other companies the chance to play the field and for
the consumers to have the opportunity to try other options. The more
they become bigger, the less the competition there is.
Thank you for your time. I hope I have clearly stated my point
here. Please review carefully the agreement before signing it.
More power to you!
Cheers,
Andrebon G. Montefrio, Jr.
MTC-00032597
From: Judith Mulcahy
[[Page 29864]]
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Judith Mulcahy
9613 Candish Court
Fairfax Station, VA 22039-3235
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032598
From: Jim Robertson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/14/02 10:59am
Subject: FW: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
I received the following email message. I am only writing to see
if it is a legitimate use of my time (or the people I forward this
to) or is it a hoax? Is the DOJ seeking public comment? I receive so
many ``form/chain'' letter via email, I never know what to
believe anymore.
Thanks for you time.
Jim Robertson
Olympia, Washington
From: Marsha Richards [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
Dear EFF Friends,
As you know, 18 states and the federal Department of Justice
(DOJ) have been involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft. Recently,
the DOJ announced it has negotiated a settlement agreement with the
company (one of America's most successful). The settlement must be
approved by the federal judge in the case before it can take effect,
and the DOJ is currently seeking public comment.
The case against Microsoft has greatly harmed Washington
citizens. Stock values, not only in Microsoft but in the entire
NASDAQ, have dropped dramatically and consumers overwhelmingly agree
that allowing the case to end with this settlement is good for them,
the industry, and the nation's economy.
Please consider sending a letter, fax or email to the DOJ to let
them know what you think about the settlement. The deadline for
comment is January 28, 2002. I'm including a sample letter below
along with the contact information you'll need. Please feel free to
edit it as you see fit, or write your own.
I would recommend sending your comments by email or fax since
mail has had difficulties lately. Also, if possible, would you let
us know if you decide to send a letter? We'd like to measure the
impact. Thanks very much.
Cordially,
Bob Williams
President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
(360) 956-3482
[email protected]
[Contact Information]
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected] Fax: (202) 307-1454
--OR-- (202) 616-9937
[Sample Letter]
To Whom it May Concern:
As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More
extreme critics complain that the remedies do not address products
that were not even part of the case.
These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also
rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an order moving
forward would be difficult to sustain given the court
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's
liability.''
One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of
Justice claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree.
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court,
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence,
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them.
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be
applied fairly.
I believe in advancing free market competition and this
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy.
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
MTC-00032599
From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/14/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 14, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 29865]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charlotte Worden
MTC-00032600
From: Joseph Guthrie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Joseph Guthrie
4 Grace Way
Hampstead, NH 03841-2245
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032601
From: charles burkart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
charles burkart
2565 mineral street
dubuque, IA 52001-5642
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032602
From: b.l.rosenberg
To: Dept of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 12:30pm
Subject: Material relevant to DOJ Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft
Monday, January 14, 2002
Dear Department of Justice,
The following email describing a restriction of browser choice
by AT&T Worldnet forcing Microsoft's browser on its customers
was sent to AT&T today, Monday, January 14, 2002. It is further
evidence of Microsoft's pervasive and dominating influence on the PC
that kills competition and impoverishes consumer choices.
Please do something to restrict Microsoft's monopoly.
Thank You
Bruce L. Rosenberg
Here is the letter:
Monday, January 14, 2002
Jerry G., AT&T Support Person,
I find AT&T's answer to the following question quite
unsatisfactory.
`` Question:
Why does my browser automatically launch when I connect even
though I disabled that feature? How do I stop it?
Answer:
At this time, there is no way to disable this feature.''
This ``feature'' could be a bug (a programming
oversight), because there is/was a check box in the options/advanced
to uncheck ``Launch Internet Explorer''. Checking or
unchecking this box no longer has any effect. Microsoft Internet
Explorer launches whether you want it or not!! Gates rules!!!
This ``feature'' could also have been implemented due
to the fact that Microsoft now has such power over the once mighty
AT&T that they must bow before them and do their bidding. I
believe that Congress and the Justice Department should be made
aware of this situation since it is relevant to the anti-monopoly
case against Microsoft. It could be considered a restriction of
browser choice by AT&T forcing Microsoft's browser on its
customers.
In any event, one hopes that this ``feature'' will
soon be ``updated'' with an improvement which will once
again allow AT&T Worldnet ISP customers to chose -not- to launch
Microsoft Internet Explorer once the connection is made.
Is such an update in the works? If so, when I might expect to
receive it?
[[Page 29866]]
Is there any way for me to go back to my previous version of
Worldnet software?
I feel that I should receive free internet service until this
``feature'' is corrected.
Please respond ASAP. Thanks.
Very sincerely,
Bruce L. Rosenberg
[email protected] wrote:
Dear Bruce ,
I received your email concerning our Auto Update. The main
objective for this update is to remove the on-screen toolbar that is
part of your price plan. There are other changes as well:
Addition of a prompt that tells you that you have been idle for
25 minutes
Auto-start of your browser software
A bug fix to support 10-digit dialing.
After you select ``yes'' to this update, just follow
the prompts you see on your screen. The update will not be applied
immediately, but only after you re-start your computer.
I have provided answers below to other questions we're getting
about this change. I apologize for any inconvenience this change has
caused.
Sincerely,
Jerry G.
Question:
Why does my browser automatically launch when I connect even
though I disabled that feature? How do I stop it?
Answer:
At this time, there is no way to disable this feature.
Question: Every time I sign on, I get the Auto Update. How do I
stop it?
Answer:
The auto update doesn't install itself until you re-start your
computer. If you do not re-start, you will be prompted each time you
log on. If you choose not to install the Auto Update by saying
``no'' when asked, you will be prompted again the next
time you log on.
----- Bruce Wrote -----
formID: 10
Category: Web browsers
First--Name: Bruce
Last--Name: Rosenberg
Computer--Type: Desktop computer
OS: Microsoft Windows 98
Browser: Netscape Communicator
Error--Message: no error message
Question: Dear AT&T Worldnet Representative,
After ``updating'' my AT&T Worldnet ISP connection
software yesterday (1/7/02), Microsoft Internet Explorer launches
even though it is unchecked on the Options/Advanced window. I am a
Netscape 4.79 user. Netscape still launches, but Internet Explorer
launches first.
I want to know how to stop MS Internet Explorer from launching.
If you cannot help me, I will be forced to find a new ISP, since
I abhor the loss of my choices due to Microsoft's monopoly on the
PC. I refuse to be forced to use Internet Explorer by my Internet
Service Provider, which is apparently what AT&T have done with
this latest Worldnet ``update''. This update was certainly
not an upgrade, it was not obvious to me that any speedup or other
improvements occurred after my updating.
All I received in response to the above was an automated
response telling me about the plan switch-over, where the 7/7 or
whatever was switched-over to a different plan. I never had the
cheap plan with enforced advertising. I had and still have the more
expensive plan, $15/150hours, so I should not have had to update my
Worldnet AT&T software. I am angry at having to deselect
Internet Explorer each time I get online so I can use Netscape 4.79.
I have emailed my complaint letter to everyone on my mailing
list to broadcast my dissatisfaction with Worldnet ISP.
Thank You,
Bruce L. Rosenberg, no longer a satisfied customer of AT&T
Worldnet!!
MTC-00032603
From: Charles Ehrenpreis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Charles Ehrenpreis
195 Federal Hill Road
Milford, NH 03055-3519
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032604
From: J.K. Weston
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02 2:19pm
Subject: (Bill Rice) Windows XP Licensing
Dear Mr. Rice:
First off, thank you for your feedback. Microsoft is strongly
committed to your satisfaction and we would like to take this
opportunity to address your concerns regarding the licensing of
Windows XP.
Your first concern is that you were unable to find any
information on installing Windows XP, on more than one computer, on
the Windows XP box itself or in a number of other locations. We
apologize if this information was not easy to locate. We did include
information about this on the back of the Windows XP
box--towards the bottom, under the word
``Experience''. The text states: ``For installation
and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license
terms)''. It is further described in the first section of the
End User License Agreement (EULA) which must be accepted during the
Windows XP installation process. For a detailed description of this
on the Microsoft website, please refer to: http://www.microsoft.com
/WINDOWSXP/home/evaluation /overviews/activation.
asp
Windows XP licensing information was also included in product
reviews done by journalists from many independent magazines and
newspapers such as PC World, PC Computing, and ZDNet.com. The
``one PC per license'' concept has been in the Windows
EULA for over ten years and is a condition of almost all products
produced by commercial software makers. Nothing about this portion
of the Windows license agreement changed with Windows XP.
You mentioned that you would like to put Windows XP on two
computers for your children but that it would be cost prohibitive at
over $500. You may have been previously provided with some incorrect
pricing information. The Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade currently
retails for around $99 per license. At this retail cost, your
children's two computers could benefit from Windows XP at just $198.
Home users with more than one computer in the household may also
qualify for a reduced upgrade price of $84.50 per license; in your
case a total of $169. You can take advantage of this offer by
calling Microsoft at 1-888-571-2048 (Press
``0'' when the call connects to speak to a customer
service representative directly).
We value you as a Windows XP customer, however if you are not
happy with the terms of the licensing agreement you are free to
return the product.
While you are under no obligation to use Windows XP as the
primary platform for your personal computers, we hope that you'll
consider using the product.
Thank you for providing Microsoft with this opportunity to
address your concerns.
Sincerely,
J.K. Weston
Microsoft Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Rice [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:46 PM
To: Bill Gates
Cc: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: windows xp
Dear Mr. Gates
I am a long time Microsoft supporter....have bought almost every
[[Page 29867]]
upgrade version of Windows, Office, FrontPage...etc !!!!
.....I work on as laptop and have a desktop for home, a laptop
for my wife, and two desktops for my 2 children.
I recently purchased the latest version of everything
available...spending over $750 before the holidays...
...I have been buying Microsoft products for years.....
I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED that the XP operating system requires
that I purchase an additional license, for hundreds of dollars, for
every PC in my house.....(this is not obvious on the purchased
product, from the retail salesperson, on the Microsoft website, or
in any advertisement...I looked! I didn't have my bi-focals and
couldn't read the VERY SMALLEST PRINT)
I have always supported Microsoft...and have not supported the
federal and state lawsuits......
BUT.....I FEEL ROBBED...no salesman warned me that, unlike all
previous versions....I would have to buy separate, EXPENSIVE
licenses for each computer in my home...(I buy a VCR tape...and use
it in all my VCRs....)....
...so I am sad to say that tonight I am writing to Judge Kollar-
Kotally as well as to all of the states attorneys general.... To
convey my personal experience...that Microsoft is not playing fair
with its market advantage....UNTIL TONIGHT, I WAS AN ARDENT
MICROSOFT SUPPORTER.....THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ON THE XP BOX
THAT THE UPGRADE WILL ONLY WORK ON ONE COMPUTER......I feel misled
and disappointed.....my children use XP at school and I wanted to
use the same operating system at home for projects and
homework...but to put the operating system on their PCs costs over
$500 and there is no alternative operating system platform......
I think the uniformity of platform created by a broadly
successful Microsoft has helped propel significant increases in our
national productivity. I now believe that Microsoft is taking
advantage of the ``little guy,'' and that this pricing
scheme may reflect a portion of what others in the technology
industry have been complaining about. I didn't understand or
appreciate the problem until tonight.
Thanks for taking the time to review these comments.
Bill Rice
CC:Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
MTC-00032605
From: Russell Porter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Russell Porter
7120 Oliver Smith Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322-3218
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032606
From: Robert Harned
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Robert Harned
113 S. Franklin
Ames, IA 50014-7512
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032607
From: wilbert skinn
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
wilbert skinn
516 n frederick ave
oelwein, IA 50662-1244
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032608
From: Clifford Jantz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29868]]
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,
Clifford Jantz
1506 Alderwood Drive Southwest
Altoona, IA 50009-2406
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032609
From: Jaclyn Fleming
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Jaclyn Fleming
6046 Terrace Drive
Johnston,, IA 50131-1561
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032610
From: Edward Jonson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing to support the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I applaud the
nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
governments lead and settle the case. However, I'm thoroughly
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia have decided to continue to pursue this baseless case.
I consider the settlement fair to all, because it allows
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and gives consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in their opposition to the federal governments
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, we've 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,
Edward Jonson
16 Hawkview Road
Hudson, NH 03051-4408
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032611
From: Donald Johnson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Donald Johnson
M-5 Snow Circle
Nashua, NH 03062-2902
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032612
From: Dennis Behrens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Dennis Behrens
921 Lewis Blvd
Sioux City, IA 51105-3254
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032613
From: OSCAR DAVIDS
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining
[[Page 29869]]
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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
OSCAR DAVIDS
3753 250TH AVE
KEOKUK, IA 52632-9737
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032614
From: Alan Lasnover
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/14/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan Lasnover
19951 Elfin Forest Lane
Elfin Forest, CA 92029
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Alan L. Lasnover, M.D.
MTC-00032615
From: Preston Lawrance
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Preston Lawrance
20 Rowell Street
P.O. Box 3133
Manchester, NH 03104-2229
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032616
From: Kurt Wuelper
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Kurt Wuelper
HC 74 Box 42
Center Strafford, NH 03815-9709
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032617
From: Wendy Speckerman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29870]]
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 (including my
own attorney general, Tom Miller of Iowa) 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.
Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them
with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the
high-technology market and their products increased my productivty
and my familiarity with the Internet.
At this time of recession, the settlement will allow Microsoft
to again focus on innovations that, along with others in the
technology sector, will lead the US into another time of economic
expansion. Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Wendy Speckerman
7820 Beaver Hills Ln
Cedar Falls, IA 50613-9302
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032618
From: Jane MacFarland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Jane MacFarland
11411 Long Pine Dr.
Houston, TX 77077-4216
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032619
From: monty fowler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
monty fowler
2718 martin st
pasadena, TX 77502-5725
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032620
From: Suzanne Dodge
To: U.S. Attorney General
Date: 1/15/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
KEITH D. DODGE & SUZANNE S. DODGE
125 RAINBOW DRIVE, #2507
LIVINGSTON, TEXAS 77399-1025
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Like many people in Texas, I am happy that a settlement
agreement has been reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. The suit has taken a toll on the IT industry and on
consumers of technology products. The settlement agreement is fair
to all the parties in the case and is the result of years of
expensive litigation. Information sharing and non-retaliation
agreements should be enough to satisfy even Microsoft's harshest
critics. Unfortunately, opponents of Microsoft would like to see the
lawsuit continue and even be reopened for further action. Three
years of litigation have already disturbed the IT industry and the
economy too much. Reopening the suit and continuing litigation will
only serve to harm the IT industry and the economy.
Now is the time to end the suit and move on. Surely, the
Department of Justice has more important issues to deal with and
Microsoft needs to move on as well. I hope that the settlement is
finalized as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Dodge
MTC-00032621
From: Edwina Houlmiere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
We think that it would be in the best interest of the American
economy to settle the Microsoft case and get on with life.
Edwina and Patrick Houlmiere
MTC-00032622
From: Jeanine Leone
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/15/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The Microsoft case should be settled with no further litigation.
Jeanine Leone
MTC-00032623
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
As a retired teacher and substitute teacher, I thought your
offer was great!!! I was and still am an avid user of the computer.
It is an outstanding learning tool for students. The government was
really shortsighted on the greatness of this offer. This is really
too bad. Keep up the good work on the products you are developing
for us!
Marilynn M Russell
ps I taught at Clover Park High school where Bill & Melinda
have given money to help students. My grandson is now at that school
as a 9th grader taking advantage of their wonderful gift. THANKS!!!!
Part of his project that he is doing for math, computers, history is
to prepare a PowerPoint presentation (with digital pictures too) to
culminate his work. Neat huh!!!!
MTC-00032624
From: William Denmark
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Please be informed, I am writing in support of the recent
settlement of the 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,
[[Page 29871]]
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,
William Denmark
4020 Saxon Drive
NSB, FL 32169-3849
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032625
From: Anne Mulhern
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Anne Mulhern
7526 N. NC Hwy. 49
Mebane, NC 27302-7518
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032626
From: Denny DeVries
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Denny DeVries
603 Juanita Ct
Lady Lake, FL 32159-9268
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032627
From: DONALD QUINN
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
DONALD QUINN
119 APPALOOSA LANE
ORMOND BEACH, FL 32174-8003
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032628
From: Donna Brooks
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Donna Brooks
2538 Spence Dr. NE
Palm Bay, FL 32905-2526
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032629
From: Holly Derenthal
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
[[Page 29872]]
Date: 1/15/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Holly Derenthal
2019 Elizabeth Avenue
Orlando, FL 32804-5439
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032630
From: Eve Kantner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Eve Kantner
12209 Freemont Lane
Raleigh, NC 27613-5631
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032631
From: Francis Kendrick
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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. I
believe that further litigation in this case will be
counterproductive for the principals, the economy, and consumers.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Francis Kendrick
1251 Paradise Way
Venice, FL 34292-1412
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032632
From: James Schaer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
James M.(Mike) Schaer
James Schaer
1570 Maple Ave.;P.O.Box 744
North Bend, OR 97459-0059
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032633
From: Joshua Menold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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
[[Page 29873]]
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,
Joshua Menold
210 W. Dupree #14
Angier, NC 27501-8830
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032634
From: Barbara Wilt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Barbara Wilt
1671- 40th Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33407-3641
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032635
From: Gary Cross
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Gary Cross
2602 Costa Mesa Drive
Dallas, TX 75228-2036
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032636
From: Keith Hosford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Keith Hosford
13310 Myrna Lane
Houston, TX 77015-1336
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032637
From: James Hussmann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
James Hussmann
307 Wexford Terrace
Venice, FL 34293-4287
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032638
From: James King
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29874]]
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,
James King
2017 Riverknoll Court-
West Linn, OR 97068-3637
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032639
From: Charles Lipford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Charles Lipford
561 Maitland Ave.
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701-6322
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032640
From: Marie Sanders
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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.
It is my opinion that this lawsuit has a lot to do with our
economic turndown today and has caused severe damage to our economy
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Marie Sanders
14603 Claycroft Ct
Cypress, TX 77429-1889
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032641
From: Robert Reed
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Robert Reed
3717 Brandy St
Orlando, FL 32812-5124
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032642
From: Alexander Beckman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Alexander Beckman
313 Appledore Ct.
Winston-Salem, NC 27103-6022
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032643
From: Willson Folmar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29875]]
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,
Willson Folmar
2016 Lebron Ave
Montgomery, AL 36106-1833
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032644
From: Hubert Owens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Hubert Owens
228 Mooney Road
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547-1374
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032645
From: David and Joanna Hargis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing to you as one of my last acts an an Oregon Citizen
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 and until
now, in this depressed economy, have brought jobs to our family and
taxes to you. Well no more. The jobs have vanished and we are
leaving the pacific northwest for more prosperous regions of the
country where people implement sound economic change and jobs are
more plentiful.
In conjunction with my support of the Microsoft settlement, I
support big business. I don't want unemployment! I want a job! And
I'd like to see the legislators do their job and quit worrying about
the next election and stalling valuable legislation. We aren't so
dumb that we don't understand what is happening. I will vote against
anyone who stalls the economic recovery that is for certain.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David and Joanna Hargis
595 Joseph Street SE
Salem, OR 97302-3972
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032646
From: Matt Niemi
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Matt Niemi
1250 H St. NW #700
Washington, DC 20005-3952
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032647
From: Gus Beall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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
[[Page 29876]]
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,
Gus Beall
1140 NE Ross Road
Bend, OR 97701-8584
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032648
From: Clyde Garland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I appaud the recent settlement the antitrust lawsuit against
Microsoft. The settlement is more than fair to the plantiffs
considering that there was no bases for the lawsuit in the first
place.
Members, like me, of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been
opposiing this lawsuit with calls, emails, visits and letters to
almost three years. So, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit.
Respectfully,
Clyde Garland
3100 Rolling Glen
Bryan, TX 77807-3209
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032649
From: Pat Ahumada
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
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,
Pat Ahumada
53 Alan A Dale
Brownsville, TX 78521-3513
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032650
From: Dean Lyons
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Heese:
Please do not allow Microsoft to continue its antitrust business
practices. To allow them a legal access to the Education Market at
the expense of Apple Computer is ludicrous.
Respectfully,
Dean Lyons
1435 Monticello Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207-8857
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032651
From: Robert Kersteen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Robert Kersteen
2821 61st Lane North
St. Petersburg, FL 33710-3357
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032652
From: Madoline Rogers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Madoline Rogers
4713 Cole Ave.
Waco, TX 76710-4611
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032653
From: Charles Parrott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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
[[Page 29877]]
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,
Charles Parrott
8272 Denise Dr.
Largo, FL 33777-2716
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032654
From: Lisa Cate
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Lisa Cate
7907 Old Hwy 86
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032655
From: Ira Paul
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Ira Paul
18495 NW 78th Avenue
Hialeah, FL 33015-2704
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032656
From: Betty McCoy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Betty McCoy
413 Glenport Ave
Glencoe, AL 35905-1189
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032657
From: Harry Hintz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Harry Hintz
5306 Overtop Lane
Raleigh, NC 27613-5550
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032658
From: Jonathan Harris
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
[[Page 29878]]
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,
Jonathan Harris
22479 Martella Ave
Boca Raton, FL 33433-4630
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032659
From: LYNN AND JOHN MCGLENN
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
LYNN AND JOHN MCGLENN
333NW FERRIS DR.
PORT ST. LUCIE, FL 34983-8668
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032660
From: JOHN COLLAR
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
JOHN COLLAR
333 MELROSE DRIVE
5 D
RICHARDSON, TX 75080-4406
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032661
From: Linda Addison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Linda Addison
222 Steedly Ave
Lake Wales, FL 33853-3756
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032662
From: Claude Prevots
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 4:09pm
Subject: Tunney: Creativity in software engineering
Greetings:
It is not in the public interest to constrain further the
creativity and innovation of Microsoft designers and software
engineers with additional, legally complex conditions. The remedies
already provided by the settlement provisions construct an edifice
of legal reasoning and arcane subtleties that will require software
developers to get a law degree to cut through this Byzantine
complexity. Endless meetings and explanations between lawyers and
engineers, not new products, are what will result.
When Attorney General Janet Reno proclaimed her enthusiastic
anticipation of the new varieties of DOS engendered by enforcement
of antitrust laws, one could only groan in disbelief at her failure
to understand how progress in the systems business thrives. In
retrospect we find no new varieties of DOS but find that it has
almost disappeared.
With Microsoft the consumer is benefited by a culture of
excellence that its competitors are unable to match. We need the
robust organization of Microsoft to keep its competitors on their
toes. An added onset of elegantia juris will only stifle further the
creative minds that generate the innovation we need to keep the U.S.
economy thriving with new functions and features to empower
consumers.
Claude Prevots
[email protected]
MTC-00032663
From: Richard Swier
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29879]]
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,
Richard Swier
6718 Paseo Castille
Sarasota, FL 34238-2709
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032664
From: Jennifer Crenshaw
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Jennifer Crenshaw
443 Randon Terrace
Lake Mary, FL 32746-2626
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032665
From: JERRY CULBERSON
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
JERRY CULBERSON
4092 LIGUSTRUM DR.
PALM HARBOR, FL 34685-3631
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032666
From: Ronald Hoelzer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Ronald Hoelzer
8318 W. Elm Street
Tampa, FL 33615-2806
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032667
From: E. Geissler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
E. Geissler
4775 South Atlantic Avenue
Ponce Inlet, FL 32127-8108
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032668
From: James Rentner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29880]]
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federal governments 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 Microsofts competitors to
use Microsofts Windows operating system to incorporate their
software programs and will give consumers more services and products
to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
James Rentner
67 Summerset Drive
Clyde, NC 28721-8415
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032669
From: Dick Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Dick Wilson
7735 Taymouth ln
Charlotte, NC 28269-9127
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032670
From: Richard McCormack
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Richard McCormack
23225 Hagey Road
Dundee, OR 97115-9211
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032671
From: David Anderson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
David Anderson
1418 NE 112 Ave.
Portland, OR 97220-3024
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032672
From: Madeleine Calder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Madeleine Calder
2605 Olive Chapel Rd.
Apex, NC 27502-6789
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
[[Page 29881]]
MTC-00032673
From: Thomas Griffith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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. Get
the government out of our business before we lose valuable companies
due to the meddling by these misguided officials. Do we want all of
our companies going overseas to operate overseas due to too much
government intervention? What sense is there in degrading a company
who has done so much good for so many people? Shame on them all.
Respectfully,
Thomas Griffith
2426 Barrington Place Drive
Sugar Land, TX 77478-1855
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032674
From: Terry Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Terry Smith
P O Box 5166
3720 Chula Vista Dr SW
Decatur, AL 35601-0166
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032675
From: Michael Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael Walker
446 N Central Valley Dr
Central Point, OR 97502-1571
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032676
From: Marlene Lieb
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Marlene Lieb
18 Mahoe Dr. So.
The Hammock, FL 32137-2634
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032677
From: margaret moorman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29882]]
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,
margaret moorman
216 lakeway
kerrville, TX 78028-7229
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032678
From: Gary Dryden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
Whereas Microsoft has been solely responisble for greatly
increasing the total propductivity of our nation, they where then
penalized with a bogus law suit by Clinton Administration whims.
When others saw the goverrnment's actions the current recession
began.
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,
Gary Dryden
582 Ruckel Drive
Niceville , FL 32578-1789
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032679
From: David Fuson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Hey! socialist duds! Get off the back of a fine American who
refuses to pay for Lobbist or Government Help inside the loop.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Fuson
2119 Five Iron Dr.
Houston, TX 77089-5618
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032680
From: Floyd Lawson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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.Some state
attoneys general seem to be interested for their own political self-
edification.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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. It
appears to have been the primordium of the fantastic rollercoaster
economy that we have had beginning in 1992.
Furthermore, it appears to have been a ``political
vindetta'' because of Microsoft's entrance into the
communications field, namely, MSNBC. It was predicted by this writer
in the early programming at MSNBC.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Floyd Lawson
1020 Larkwood Drive, NE
Cullman, AL 35055-2133
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032681
From: Charles Baker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I support 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,
Charles Baker
4646 Pliney Farlow Rd.
Trinity, NC 27370-7449
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032682
From: Gerald Totten
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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
[[Page 29883]]
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,
Gerald Totten
108 Petty Road
Siler City, NC 27344-7892
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032683
From: Rev. James Rodgers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I agree with the Justice Department's decision to settle with
Microsoft Corp. The holdout state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia should follow your lead.
Microsoft's actions, instead of harming consumers, lowered the
cost and increased the availability of the software products they
sought. Microsoft also made millions of us more famiiliar with the
Internet.
Thanks for deciding to settle this unjust lawsuit.
Respectfully,
Rev. James Rodgers
15727 El Camino Real
Clear Lake City, TX 77062-4415
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032684
From: Willie Starling
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Willie Starling
1523 Indian Springs Rd.
Mt. Olive, NC 28365-8767
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032685
From: Nancy Hall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Nancy Hall
1861 Beneva Ct Apt 1203
Sarasota, FL 34232-3150
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032686
From: Charles Snyder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Charles Snyder
110 Harness Lane
Georgetown, TX 78628
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032687
From: Richard Moats
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
I am still amazed the Clinton Justice Dept. chose to initiate
this case in the first place. On second thought, I am not surprised
by anything that happened during the most corrupt national
administration in the history of our country.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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.
[[Page 29884]]
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Richard Moats
2825 41st. Way S.E.
Olympia, WA 98501-6212
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032688
From: Clifford Earle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Deserves a Breakup
Dear Ms. Heese:
Below please find the text of a form letter available on the
``Capitol Connect'' site, supposedly a consumer advocacy
outfit of some sort. Please do not believe a word of it.
Microsoft deserves to be slammed in court for their actions and
practices, and I would hope that no amount of thoughtless form
letters, however prettily formatted, would change that fact.
Regards,
--Cliff ***
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Clifford Earle
8640 Hillrose St.
Sunland, CA 91040-2701
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032689
From: Dave Catherman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Dave Catherman
5712 Stone Mill Rd
Waxhaw, NC 28173-8059
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032690
From: James Collins
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
James Collins
109 ridge View Rd
Pittsboro, NC 27312-5663
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032691
From: paul caple
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
paul caple
3215 NE 15 ST #101
Pompano Beach, FL 33062-3321
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032692
From: Gary Lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 29885]]
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,
Gary Lewis
160 W Park Ave
Mooresville, NC 28115-2242
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032693
From: Renee Pearison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Renee Pearison
5434 Alfred St
Crozet, VA 22932-3514
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032694
From: Troy Landrum
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Troy Landrum
509 Ridge Country Road
Haslet, TX 76052-4207
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032695
From: James Parker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
James Parker
3445 Self Creek Rd
Warrior, AL 35180-2215
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032696
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Chris Sinclair
3728 Cliff Haven Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615-8118
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032697
From: Jim Thrasher
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
[[Page 29886]]
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Jim Thrasher
4613 70th Place
Urbandale, IA 50322-8012
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032698
From: Sepideh Baghaii
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the the state attorneys general and
the District of Columbia against Microsoft.
The settlement is a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. It will not
guarantee that Microsoft cannot continue to attack small or other
large companies through non-competitive means. The Microsoft Windows
operating system is only now becoming a true operating system. It
still leaves a lot to be desired. Whether or not Microsoft choose to
create more mediocre products for the public is not an issue.
Whether or not smaller software companies and other companies can
play in this market is.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
antitrust case against Microsoft. This view point is clearly a
misguide stance from a group of people unaware of the speed of
changing technology and the options available to them. 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 is detrimental
to consumers. The evidence can be seen in the demise of Netscape and
the battles against SUN over J++. Microsoft's anticompetitive
behavior has limited the high-technology market and have forced
users to learn to accept mediocre products.
Respectfully,
Sepideh Baghaii
1020 Kent St.
#216
Boulder, CO 80303-1826
MTC-00032699
From: Brian Irving
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Brian Irving
1713 Veanna Drive
Fayetteville, NC 28301-2926
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032700
From: Michael Wegman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Michael Wegman
609 Green Drive
Goldsboro, NC 27534-7743
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032701
From: Roger Corbett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Roger Corbett
7508 Roberts Rd
[[Page 29887]]
Apex, NC 27502-9674
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032702
From: Carolyn and Gerald Johnson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Carolyn and Gerald Johnson
7689 Rabbit Circle
Denver, NC 28037-9477
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032703
From: Joseph Piccirillo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Joseph Piccirillo
702 Ocean Dunes Circle
Jupiter, FL 33477-9117
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032704
From: John Benningfield
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
John Benningfield
2015 N Fremont
Cornelius, OR 97113-7384
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032705
From: Miss Julie Smithson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Miss Julie Smithson
213 Thorn Locust Lane
London, OH 43140-8844
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032706
From: Linda Ayers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
Continuation of the case threatens to prolong the 8-month old
recession, as well as increase the severity of the technology
sector's 18-month decline. In this time of economic uncertainty, we
need businesses that stimulate demand for other products throughout
their industry to get back to work, not encounter new obstacles to
growth. It is time to put an end to this lawsuit and get back to the
business of strengthing our economy
[[Page 29888]]
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Linda Ayers
3220 Darlington Dr. SW
Decatur, AL 35603-3165
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032707
From: John Harding
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
John Harding
5906 143rd St SE
Everett, WA 98208-9339
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032708
From: Phyllis Sisk
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Phyllis Sisk
4965 Old Belews Creek Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27101-6426
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032709
From: Roy Stewart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Roy Stewart
19 Hickory Lane
Bedford, NH 03110-5720
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032710
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02 7:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
I just wanted to vent about what is happening with the MicroSoft
Settlement. MicroSoft started from nothing and is solely responsible
for the PC revolution and a good deal of the other technological
advancements we know and enjoy today. It is unfair for this country
to penalize success. I think it is great that finally a U.S. company
is a world leader and is able to compete with other corporations
around the world especially when so many of them are subsidized by
their governmants.
Please stop playing politics and look at all the good that the
company does. Bill Gates donates a lot to charities, pays more than
his share in personnel and corporate taxes and provides a lot of
jobs. I was disgusted and embarassed to be an American under Clinton
but have regained my pride and patriotism under President Bush.
Please do the correct and honorable thing and put this endless
litigation to rest. The only people that win are the lawyers.
Thank you,
Bill Klueber
MTC-00032711
From: Floyd Majors
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese: 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,
Floyd Majors
4922 Middleton Street
Baytown, TX 77520-1402
[[Page 29889]]
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032712
From: Michael Weekley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese: 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,
Michael Weekley
4610 Governor Kent Ct.
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-5905
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032713
From: Robin Alberg
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese: 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 governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Robin Alberg
9027 W. Shorewood Dr. #603
Mercer Island, WA 98040-3236
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032714
From: Jane Aguirre
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese: 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 governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Jane Aguirre
1308 N. 13th St.
Temple, TX 76501-1904
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032715
From: Aaron Alberg
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Aaron Alberg
9027 W. Shorewood Dr.
Apt. 603
Mercer Island, WA 98040-6265
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032716
From: Marcus Griffis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29890]]
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,
Marcus Griffis
717 Dove Dr
Victoria, TX 77905-0558
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032717
From: Shirley Briden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Shirley Briden
941 Southridge Tr.
Altamonte Springs,, FL 32714-1286
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032718
From: Charlie Brown
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Charlie Brown
PO Box 40
Barium Springs, NC 28010-0040
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032719
From: Howard Kistler
Date: 1/16/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern,
As a long-time computer programmer and software developer, I am
urging the Department Of Justice to consider practical and
responsible remedies to the monopoly of Microsoft.
Microsoft has long enjoyed immunity from punishment for its many
abuses of power. This is in a large part because those abuses allow
it make far more money than is ever levied against it in penalty. In
truth, it is hard to calculate how large a fine would be necessary
to even impact them. That is why other remedies must be pursued,
beyond those of simple fines and behavioral decrees.
I believe that one of the only, if not the only, remedies that
would address the monopoly situation is to force Microsoft to open
up the Windows APIs for competitive development. This would have
multiple positive effects, including the following:
(1) It would allow true competition in the operating system
marketplace. Competition in turn is one of the only factors that
drive companies to produce a genuinely better product, and to offer
those products at reasonable market prices. It is my opinion that
this lack of competition is a large part of what has cause Microsoft
to offer increasingly problematic and user-hostile products, and at
absurdly inflated prices.
(2) It would create transparency in the operating system. This
would allow other companies and developers to create products that
interface better with the OS, as well as decrease the amount of
viruses and other code exploits written which take advantage of the
hidden code.
(3) It would spur actual innovation from Microsoft, as opposed
to it merely bundling in features which increase its monopoly but do
not add to, and often hinder, the user experience.
The only argument against this remedy that I can see as viable
is that this settlement deprives Microsoft of some of their
intellectual property. While very probably true, it is also
unfortunate that this is most likely the only way in which Microsoft
can be brought to terms in the settlement. As a company which has
enjoyed a monopoly position for too long, and which has deprived
other firms of their intellectual property and market share, and
which has flaunted its disregard for previous judgements against it,
I believe that opening the Windows APIs is the only option left to
the DOJ if it truly wishes to resolve this issue. Otherwise, we can
all expect another investigation like this within the next decade,
and each decade after until real action is taken against the
Microsoft monopoly.
Sincerely,
Howard Kistler
MTC-00032720
From: linda woods
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
linda woods
44966 camino veste
temecula, CA 92592-1622
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032721
From: Roger Ryder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:07am
[[Page 29891]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Roger Ryder
235 E. Garfield St.
Chambersburg, PA 17201-3514
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032722
From: James Hinson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
If you will take the time to research it you will see that the
stock markets started their downward sperial at about the same time
that the law suit against Microsoft started. It has continued to go
down since that fateful time. Please, please get off of American
businesses back and leave the free enterprize system alone. Every
time the goverment sees fit to intrude on the free enterprize system
we end up with nothing but trouble.
Respectfully,
James Hinson
2538 Comanche Trail
Hillsborough, NC 27278-8854
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032723
From: Ed Pickett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Ed Pickett
21o Hunter ln.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28211
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032724
From: William A.Pauwels, Sr.
To: judi bron
Date: 1/16/02 8:58am
Subject: More on the Microsoft Settlement
Judi,
Your unhappiness with Microsoft represents a need that another
company should exploit. If they were any good they would already be
doing so. It is not the Governments business to make Microsoft less
competitive.
I sympathize with the technical problems you are having. I go
nuts when I have them, which is fairly often. Let's face it,
personal computer technology is at the Model-T stage of development.
The V-8 hasn't been invented yet. Let's hope it happens soon.
There are so many things the Government should be focused on . .
. like preserving good manufacturing jobs in America. Why they keep
attacking good American companies makes no sense. Where do they
think the good jobs are going to come from?
Also, I think the overpayment of Corporate Executives is a
National and perhaps International disgrace. I say that as the 18
year President and COO of a mid-sized multinational company (now
semi-retired). It is one thing to invest and risk your own capital
and make a fortune . . . it is quit another thing to be given
exorbitant salaries and lucrative stock option deals. I know all the
arguments about creating value, but this value should be shared with
the employees and not hogged up by a handful of greedy executives.
Anyway, I appreciate you perspective.
All the best!
Bill Pauwels, Sr.
1-16-02
judi b wrote:
A month ago I would hav agreed with you and then some, but then
I had an experience. You know that I am legally blind and work on
adaptive equipment. I downloaded IE6 and OE6 and they weren't that
compatable with my screen reader. I called in a tech for a lot of
money and asked him if he could remove IE6 and OE6 and reinstall OE5
and IE5. It was a brutal job but he eventually did it. In short,
because there were componants of the 6 family left in the computer
that microsoft designed to not be removed the install of the 5
family really messed up my computer. I could not write an Email and
I could not write on the net. In other words I could not write on a
search engine a subject I wanted to search for. Since I hav
thousands of hours of work on this machine and none of it gets
anywhere if I don't have Email, which the reinstall of the 5 family
left me with, I spent a harrowing weekend wondering if I would ever
send out another article. Bill Gates deserves what he has earned and
deserves the noteriety for what he has accomplished. However, why
does he have this desire to totally take over every computer to the
extent that changes cannot be made because the componants in his
software can never get out of a system once they get in? Bill, if
you buy a house with a garage would it be fair that the only car
that the garage could hold be a chevy? I know this analogy is far
fetched but there is nothing else that I know of that dominates like
Microsoft. The upshot of my problem is that I reinstalled the 6
family and am living with
[[Page 29892]]
the inconveniences that occur with my screen reader, its better than
having no Email and no ability to search on the net. Judi
----- Original Message -----
From: ``William A.Pauwels, Sr.''
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The case against Microsoft should be dropped. Microsoft has made
GREAT contributions to the well-being of mankind and to its
institutions.
The Justice Dept.'s persecution of SUCCESSFUL American companies
because their competitors don't like them and/or can't measure-up in
the marketplace, is ridiculous.
If the Justice Dept. is looking for something to champion, why
not go after the thousands of FOREIGN companies doing business in
the USA while violating American Antitrust Laws.
Sincerely,
William A. Pauwels, Sr.
1-15-02
MTC-00032725
From: Tyler Haynes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Tyler Haynes
3419 Foss Drive
Saginaw, MI 48603-1711
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032726
From: Roberta Hoffman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Roberta Hoffman
2940 W Carson Street Unit 102
Torrance,, CA 90503-6059
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032727
From: w. orben
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
w. orben
139 n.fiji is. cir.
no. englewood , FL 34223
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032728
From: Samuel Butler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I support the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys
general and Microsoft Corporation. Too,I applaud the nine state
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's
lead and settle the case, However, the decision to pursue this
baseless case, made by the remaining state attorneys general and the
District of Columbia, is extremely disappointing and needless.
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, we, the members of Citizens for a Sound
Economy, are 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.
I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit
against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Samuel Butler
1487 Shorewood Place
Lakeland, FL 33803-4275
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032729
From: John Enright
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29893]]
Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that
decided to follow the federal governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
John Enright
7 Golden Place
The Woodlands, TX 77381-4329
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032730
From: Oscar Engfer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Oscar Engfer
PO Box 26
Orting, WA 98360-0026
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032731
From: Peggy Venable
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Peggy Venable
13419 Wisterwood
Austin, TX 78729-1941
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032732
From: Robert Fricke
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Robert Fricke
612 Tara Dr.
High Point, NC 27265-1012
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032733
From: Fred Habenicht
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Fred Habenicht
163 Prawn Road
Port Angeles, WA 98363-9000
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
[[Page 29894]]
MTC-00032734
From: Ernest Hartwig
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Ernest Hartwig
1534 Mary's Peak Rd.
Blodgett, OR 97326-9704
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032735
From: Thomas Gillespie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Reject It)
Dear Ms. Heese:
The Microsoft Settlement is bad for the computer industry.
Please do not support the settlement. Microsoft needs to know that
anti-competitive actions in the market will not be tolerated by our
elective leaders.
Respectfully,
Thomas Gillespie
P.O. Box 177
Albany, MO 64402-0177
MTC-00032736
From: Jack Hansen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Jack Hansen
1600 Verde Lane
Mundelein, IL 60060-4821
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032737
From: Frank Russo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Frank Russo
PO Box 12
102 Cambridge Crt
Havelock, NC 28532-0012
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032738
From: john marten
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
john marten
37666 hwy 58
pleasant hill, OR 97455-9787
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032739
From: Mary Syrdahl
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts
[[Page 29895]]
Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Mary Syrdahl
2231 Robinhood
Houston, TX 77005-2603
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032740
From: Colin Hathcock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Colin Hathcock
108 Leach Rd
Salisbury, NC 28146-8578
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032741
From: Michael Conklin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Michael Conklin
1911 NW 29th Court
Ocala, FL 34475-4710
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032742
From: Brian Van Bergen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. DOJ, state attorneys
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal governments
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 wasteful case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
DOJ 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,
Brian Van Bergen
141 SW Hawthorne Ct.
Dundee, OR 97115-9547
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032743
From: Norman Bresette
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Norman Bresette
113 Montclair Road
Mauldin, SC 29662-1829
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032744
From: MaryAnn Thompson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29896]]
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,
MaryAnn Thompson
205 Seneca Ct
Franklin, TN 37067-1324
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032745
From: Gil
To: DOJ
Date: 1/16/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I should think that my government would have better things to do
with my tax dollars than persecute Microsoft. Big business is a
notoriously ``hard ball'' environment, and other software
manufacturers had several years to get their ``at bats''
while MS was still playing with DOS versions 1 though 4. Windows
didn't really become popular until v 3.0, but the slackers in the
industry failed to foresee how popular Windows would become. That's
not the fault of Gates et al. As for what MS wishes to incorporate
into their OS--that should be up to them. It's their product,
and if they want to give away a BMW with the damn thing then that's
their call! Nobody in the country is selling web browsers anyway, so
what's the big deal? None of the other software publishers is
building a competitive operating system/interface to try to loosen
the MS hold on the market. They'd rather sit around crying to the
DOJ about how they've been beaten up by MS because they failed to
forecast the market correctly. I have one word for them--TOUGH!
If you want to look into some real monopolizing why not check out
Apple--they have no competition in their market for either
their operating system or hardware.
Or investigate Intel--whose only real competitor, AMD, is
having their share of financial woes. To lose AMD would give Intel
the same kind of power that you're claiming Microsoft has garnered
through hard work, outstanding marketing, and yes, occasional
pressure. But then, everybody in business uses what power they may
have to get the edge on their competitors--that's what makes
our system work. Mass producers get lower per unit costs on
everything than a Mom and Pop operation gets. That hurts the
struggling independent--but nobody seems to care
much--except Mom and Pop. It's the way things work!
All large businesses use whatever leverage they have to improve
their market share while reducing the market prospects of
competitors. Microsoft has just been more successful at it than
anybody in the world could have imagined when Gates bought the
rights to an unpromising DOS from IBM. Bill Gates is the
``Alexander the Great'' of product development and
marketing. The world has never seen the likes of Microsoft before,
and it might never see another such phenomena again. He hasn't done
anything patently illegal, and there's no law requiring mercy for
those who cannot or will not compete-- let him enjoy the fruits
of his labors. Please spend my tax dollars on something more
meaningful than buying Kleenexes for a bunch of sobbing ``big
business'' tycoons who failed to read the writing on the wall.
ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER!
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00032746
From: Richard Higginbotham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Richard Higginbotham
84 Cherokee Trail
Medford Lakes, NJ 08055-1602
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032747
From: Joe Haynes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Joe Haynes
10012 130th Lane North
Seminole, FL 33776-1709
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032748
From: Delbert Bock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
governments 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 Microsofts
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
[[Page 29897]]
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments
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,
Delbert Bock
PO Box 1628
Rogue River, OR 97537-1628
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032749
From: Patricia Lauzon
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Patricia Lauzon
3811 Beckley
Battle Creek, MI 49015-9329
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032750
From: John Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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. I see these
actions demonstrating the attitude of ``let's milk another
corporation'' a la the heinous assult on ``big
tobacco.'' To paraphrase a formal presidential advisor,
``It's the money, stupid.''
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,
John Wilson
R. D. 2
Templeton, PA 16259-9802
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032751
From: Randy Copeland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Randy Copeland
3303 Mt. Willing Rd
Efland, NC 27243-9121
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032752
From: JEAN Chan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
JEAN Chan
27277 Smith River Rd
Reedsport, OR 97467
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032753
From: Walter Gammel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
[[Page 29898]]
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,
Walter Gammel
10640 East Michigan Avenue
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248-8809
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032754
From: Kath Glauser
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Kath Glauser
2260 Scovel Ave.
Pennsauken, NJ 08110-1726
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032755
From: R. Herschel Wyatt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
R. Herschel Wyatt
68 Delbert Hodge Rd.
London, KY 40741-9061
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032756
From: Harry Pierson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Harry Pierson
11064 Clear Meadows Dr.
Las Vegas, NV 89134-7235
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032758
From: Jerry Chabrian
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
[[Page 29899]]
Jerry Chabrian
648 Bua Drive
Temple Terrace, FL 33617-3800
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032759
From: Shirley Bossbach
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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,
Shirley Bossbach
6132 Davidson Dr.
Matthews, NC 28104-5450
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032760
From: Maryann Christensen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
LEAVE IT ALONE!! The recent settlement of the long-running
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation is fair. 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,
Maryann Christensen
583 East Benbow Street
Murray, UT 84107-5075
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032761
From: FRANK SKIERMONT
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
FRANK SKIERMONT
25 SHERWOOD LANE
DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901-3234
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032762
From: charles braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
charles braly
685 east adams street
nashville, IL 62263-1766
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032763
From: Kevin Allen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by
[[Page 29900]]
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,
Kevin Allen
3001 Emerald Chase Drive
Oak Hill, VA 20171-2335
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032764
From: David Rive
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Rive
3320 Kemper Street, 201
San Diego, CA 92110-4905
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032765
From: Roger Bartilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Roger Bartilson
17928 Jaguar Path
Lakeville, MN 55044-9678
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032766
From: J. Mark (Marco) Gentile
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
J. Mark (Marco) Gentile
P.O. Box 2914
La Jolla, CA 92038-2914
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032767
From: Brian Humble
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing to oppose 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 these state attorneys general have decided to let Microsoft win
the case.
The settlement is only favorable to Microsoft. It will only
allow Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating
system to incorporate their software programs but will still give
Microsoft more services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in their opposition to the federal
government's antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years,
activists like these 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 have not provided any proof to that effect.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to not settle this
fortunate lawsuit against an oppressive and monopolistic company.
Respectfully,
Brian Humble
6 Helen Street
Georgetown, DE 19947-9442
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032768
From: John Dupree
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft.
[[Page 29901]]
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,
John Dupree
8705 Kugler Mill Rd
Cincinnati, OH 45243-1427
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032769
From: Jean Fordham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jean Fordham
891 Warwick Dr.
Macon, GA 31210-1535
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032770
From: Jeffrey James
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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.
The settlement is more than fair to all. It will allow
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit
against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jeffrey James
822 Forest Ave.
OMAHA, NE 68108-3631
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032771
From: Tom Dekker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Tom Dekker
22 Serna
RSM, CA 92688-2741
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032772
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: addelivery@universaladvertising. com@inetgw
Date: 1/17/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Over the years I have seen MS stifle competition by stomping out
rivals. I work in the Web Development arena, helping companies to
build on line applications. I also use other operating systems
besides Windows. I want the freedom to use the platform of choice
and this will only continue to be an option if MS has viable
competition. This competition will only continue if developers are
not scared away from working with other companies by MS.
The settlement MS has proposed only allows them further inroads
into a field (education) where they have the only serious
competition. Apple has worked very hard to cultivate the education
market--fairly!
To give MS unfettered access to that market would only hasten
it's demise. Corporations find themselves spending billions to keep
up with MS. Conversely, supporting Apple computers in education is a
much more cost efficient method of bringing technology to students.
Total cost of ownership is much higher with MS operating systems and
compatible PC's. Allowing MS to rapidly corner this market, as the
current proposal provides, would not only stifle competitors, it
would cost education and thus government even more money and not
benefit students beyond what they currently receive.
Derrick Peavy
Sales and Web Services
Universal Advertising
[email protected]
Phone: 404-786-5036
Fax: 404-477-0527
Corporate:
1304 North Cliff Valley Way
Atlanta, GA 30319
Tearsheets:
PO Box 191188
Atlanta, GA 31119
CC:Microsoft
ATR,[email protected]@ine...
MTC-00032773
From: Hillary Murphy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 29902]]
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Hillary Murphy
421 Forest Glen Drive
Albany, GA 31707-3009
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032774
From: Margaret Bullock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Margaret Bullock
15 W. Roszell Dr.
Nineveh, IN 46164-9737
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032775
From: Robert Moeller
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Because
we are living in a country who governs ``by the people, for the
people'', we hope you will consider the voice of ``the
people''.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Robert & Susan Moeller
10706 Silver Pheasant Drive
Charlotte, NC 28226-4614
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032776
From: James Warn
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Warn
1901 Conridge Dr
Edmond, OK 73034-6862
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032777
From: Ron LITTLE
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ron LITTLE
3205 CORAL DRIVE
OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-3927
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032778
From: Steven Goldmacher
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
[[Page 29903]]
Date: 1/17/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Steven Goldmacher
9 Brantford Court
Marlboro, NJ 07746-1237
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032779
From: William Bertles
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
William Bertles
1805 Kenwood ave
Alexandria, VA 22302-2641
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032780
From: Kristopher McCasland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Kristopher McCasland
166 Oxford Ave.
Bradford, MA 01835-8339
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032781
From: Lisa Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Lisa Walker
7444 Shadowwood CT NE
Keizer, OR 97303-7853
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032782
From: Melissa Hawkes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
[[Page 29904]]
Respectfully,
Melissa Hawkes
7559 Glowing Ember Court
#201
Las Vegas, NV 89130-7920
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032783
From: Stephen Foxx
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Stephen Foxx
7915 Campion Ln.
Hazelwood, MO 63042-3501
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032784
From: Cheryl Engasser
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Cheryl Engasser
1515 Boies Road
East Aurora, NY 14052-9726
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032785
From: DONALD WALLING
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
DONALD WALLING
855 HEATHERIDGE
BRIGHTON, MI 48116
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032786
From: Tom Burris
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Tom Burris
P.O. Box 379
4161 Fox Rd
Kingsville, OH 44048-0379
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032787
From: George Forray
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by
[[Page 29905]]
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,
George Forray
337 Campbell St.
Mishawaka, IN 46544-2853
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032788
From: Rick Moore
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rick Moore
7580 Seacrest Way, North
Noblesville, IN 46060
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032789
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: dept. of justice
Date: 1/17/02 9:23am
Subject: Open file formats
I would like to comment on the Microsoft case. There should be a
push towards opening Microsoft file formats ( ea.. Word, Excel) if
government doesn't want to find itself in a position where Bill
Gates will dictate when and what software to use and how much to put
in his coffers. It only make sense that user should be able to use
any word processor to open a document, or any spreadsheet program to
open a spreadsheet and so on. You do not have to break company apart
to force competition. Just insist that in order to get government
software contracts, it has to be open file format.
Regards
Marek Kiela
[email protected]
Canada
MTC-00032790
From: Dale Hash
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Dale Hash
8014 Troiano Drive
Culpeper, VA 22701-7267
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032791
From: Bernard McCoy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Bernard McCoy
179 Brandon
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-5378
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032792
From: Eric Gruss
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Non-Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in non-support of the recent settlement of the
long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I am
disappointed in the nine state attorneys generalalong with the
federal government's decision to settle the case. I am very estatic
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this case.
The settlement is unfair to all. It will allow Microsoft's to
contiune on with an unfair monopoly of the home PC operating
systems. I believe they will also continue to abuse loopholes in
this agreement to claim their ``openess'' while behind the
scenes they will make changes to users computers to render other
company's software products inoperable.
Recentlly Microsoft released it's newest operating system that
threatens every small software vendor in the US. It gives Microsoft
the ability to force updates on users computers that could
consequentlly have adverse effects on other non-microsoft software.
Once again, I would urge you not to settle this lawsuit against a
successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Eric Gruss
2424 Alvarado Dr
Kettering, OH 45420-1010
MTC-00032794
From: Jenny McNamara
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29906]]
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The
settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to
use Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their
software programs and will give consumers more services and products
to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jenny McNamara
2801 Lake Earl Drive
Crescent City, CA 95531-8814
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032795
From: Andrew Rufus
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Andrew Rufus
221 west 12th street
apt#221
Columbus, OH 43210-1303
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032796
From: Robert Moore
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Robert Moore
319 W. Oak St.
Washington Court House, OH 43160-1853
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032797
From: Ben Leland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.WE
HAVE WASTED ENOUGH TIME AND MONEY ON THIS CASE AND SHOULD NOT EXPEND
ANYMORE.wE HAVE MANY OTHETR PLACES TO PUT THE TAXPAYER'S HARD EARNED
MONEY. LETS GET GOING. BTLELAND
Respectfully,
Ben Leland
6041 Kendrick Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4235
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032798
From: David Padden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Padden
10357 S. Leavitt St.
Chicago, IL 60643-2418
[[Page 29907]]
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032799
From: M. Sass
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
M. Sass
3550 N Lake Shore Dr
Chicago, IL 60657-1916
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032800
From: James Orcutt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Orcutt
PO Box 465
Fallbrook, CA 92088-0465
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032801
From: Virginia Almonrode
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Virginia Almonrode
PCO 1st District
8611 NE 135th
Kirkland, WA 98034-1723
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032802
From: matthew casey
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Matthew Casey
3601 Genevieve Ave N.
Oakdale, MN 55128-3070
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032803
From: David L. Williams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I support the recent settlement of the lawsuit between the U.S.
Department of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft
Corporation.
The majority of Americans also support Microsoft as witnessed by
continuing heavy use of their innovative and successful software.
The irony of a government trying to destroy a successful business is
not lost on many people.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
[[Page 29908]]
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David L. Williams
1335 Sunny Slope Rd.
Fairbanks, AK 99709-6430
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032804
From: Jack Davis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jack Davis
1702 Vintner Way
San Jose, CA 95124-5739
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032805
From: Gem Burke
To: Justice
Date: 1/17/02 10:50am
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement Addendum
Addendum near bottom
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
cc Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Gorden Smith
Representative Greg Walden
Attorney General, State of Oregon
1810 Queens Branch Rd.
Rogue River, OR 97537
January 16, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement.
My name is Gem Burke and work in the communications industry as
an engineer. I do not claim to be a computer expert or geek,
although I probably know more about computers & software than
the average user. I am simply a user of computers and their software
and I would like a statement about the ?Microsoft Settlement?. I
have tried reading at least some of the papers on this action and
incorporate that with what seems to be happening in the real world.
On this very day, I installed my tax program from Quicken and at the
end of it Microsoft's Internet Explorer was installed on my
computer. I wasn't asked, it wasn't an option. Then I was asked if I
wanted to install AOL. So here it is January 16, 2002 and after all
the denials of Microsoft, I'm still getting IE shoved down my throat
whether I like it or not. They (Microsoft) are obviously not
concerned about anything happening to them in court. This is not the
first time Intuit has done this to me and complained to them about
this then to no avail.
I could tell you about the site on the internet I logged into
that changed all my defaults from Netscape to IE or any of quite a
number of other examples of blatant examples of monopolistic
behavior but the point I thought important is even on this late
date, Microsoft is continuing to muscle out competition confident
that it will come through this proceedings unscathed.
I work in the telephone business and one thing for sure, as
AT&T was accused of being a monopoly and they were forced to
breakup into a dozen smaller companies for anticompetiveness then,
Microsoft should be broken up into 200 smaller companies because not
only is Microsoft bigger and stronger,. he doesn't even try to hide
the fact that he plans to muscle everyone else out. I'm not a lawyer
but a blind man could see the blatant anticompetativeness of
Microsoft and the fact that he can use his resources to beat off
anybody including the justice department.
01-17-02 Today I tried using Turbo Tax. The first
thing to do is update for latest tax information. TT (Turbo Tax)
will only allow this to be done using IE (Internet Explorer). Trying
to get help or post comments with Netscape only results in error
messages.
TT help says: ************************
``Internet Explorer is installed to allow TurboTax to
quickly and reliably identify your Internet Service Provider(s)
(i.e. AOL, Earthlink...) and allow you to connect to the Internet
through TurboTax. Access to the Internet is required to update your
product, download your state program, and file electronically.
Internet Explorer is not configured as your default browser and can
be uninstalled from your computer along with TurboTax after you have
filed your tax return.'' ************************
Which brings to question, ``Why do they need to know who my
IP is?'' Secondly, I suspect they are really gathering some
other kind of information from the computer, illegally, why else
would they insist on using this browser? There may be a lot of un-
documented features of IE may allow them to do lots of illegal
snooping of my records. And it is just possible that Quicken has a
back-door built into their programs that allows them access to all
my finical records. If this could be referred to the proper
authorities or somebody tell me who I could refer this to. I believe
I have a valid complaint and I would like to see something done
about it.
Thank You
Gem Burke
MTC-00032806
From: A. Lorenz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
A. Lorenz
RR1
Warsaw, OH 43844
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032807
From: Alben Du Vall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been
[[Page 29909]]
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,
Alben Du Vall
PO Box 199
West Hamlin, WV 25571-0199
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032808
From: Elizabeth LeForge
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth LeForge
1201 Woodrow Wilson
Fostoria, OH 44830-1663
MTC-00032809
From: Alan Price
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Alan Price
18 Bedford Terrace
Turnersville, NJ 08012-2102
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032810
From: Dave Hammond
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Dave Hammond
215 Main Street
Culver, KS 67484-9131
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032811
From: Ethelmae Humphreys
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ethelmae Humphreys
2505 E. 11th St.
Joplin, MO 64801-5330
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032812
From: Robert Edwards
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will
[[Page 29910]]
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,
Robert Edwards
179 Taurus Drive
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459-5408
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032813
From: Jed Rice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
To many of us the Microsoft litigation appears to be nothing
more than the heavy hand of government in search of more money to
squander. The government appears always to search for more money and
power, without any increase in it's effectivness. The net effect is
to reduce freedom for everyone and increase the cost of of
government and everything we purchase. We should be reducing the
power and intrusivness of government and get back to the role of
government invisioned in the constitution.
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jed Rice
[email protected]
San Ramon, CA 94583
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032814
From: JoAnn King
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
JoAnn King
2118 East Pike
Zanesville, OH 43701-4621
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032815
From: Melanie Berrett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Melanie Berrett
20811 Quiet Brook Place
Potomac Falls, VA 20165-5866
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032816
From: David Seng
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Seng
360 Browns Point
Dawsonville, GA 30534-6903
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032817
From: Rick Sexauer
[[Page 29911]]
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rick Sexauer
2517 La Sierra Court
Camarillo, CA 93012-8812
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032818
From: JOHN D. BORGES
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
JOHN D. BORGES
9538 RT220 HWY
HUGHESVILLE, PA 17737
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032819
From: David Littmann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Littmann
2752 Courville Drive
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-1017
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032820
From: Patricia Shampo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Patricia Shampo
1046 Hwy M 35
Bark River, MI 49807-9770
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032821
From: Charlie Browne
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Continued harrassment of Microsoft can only further weaken the
economies of both the USA as well as Washington and the Puget Sound
area. This state already has the second
[[Page 29912]]
highest unenemployment rate in the nation. Enough is enough. They
have been punished. We all have been punished! Look at the timing of
the start of the nations economic demise and the position of Janet
Reno's ``case'' in April of 2000.
Respectfully,
Charlie Browne
638 164th Pl NE
Bellevue, WA 98008-4013
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032822
From: Brenda Martin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Brenda Martin
4236 Irene Drive
Anchorage, AK 99504-4629
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032823
From: Eric Ivers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Please accept the settlement for the Microsoft case. We have
spent altogether too much time and money on this in the first place,
and it is time to move on.
Respectfully,
Eric Ivers
145 Locust
Carrollton, IL 62016-1328
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032824
From: Kate Mulligan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Kate Mulligan
22 Overlook Drive
Wilbraham, MA 01095-1924
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032825
From: Pat Cygan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Pat Cygan
1642 Lara St. N .E.
Palm Bay, FL 32907-2421
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032826
From: J.Bryan Mc Duffie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
J.Bryan Mc Duffie
110 Mc Duffie Lane
P. O. Box 1594
West Monroe, LA 71291-9425
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032827
From: Ramon Ramirez
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29913]]
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ramon Ramirez
3295 N 153rd Dr
Goodyear, AZ 85338-8530
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032828
From: David Bartlett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Bartlett
1401 Stonington Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412-5113
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032829
From: John Blanton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:41pm
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in against the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I disappointed in
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I thoroughly approve of the
decision by the remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia to further pursue this case.
The settlement acheives nothing. It leaves Microsoft in position
to use Microsoft's Windows operating system as an unfair leverage
against their competitors (such as they did with Netscape) and will
leave consumers with less services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, most, but not all, members of Citizens
for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in our opposition to the
federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft. Myself, I
thought the initial case did not go far enough. As someone who works
daily with the internet and many different software packages, I have
seen Microsoft use their knowledge of their own operating system to
give themselves an unfair advantage over their competitors. By
including more and more options, such as browsers and media players,
in their OS and using their financial weight against OEMs (Original
Equipment Manufacturers) they have eliminated many compeitiors. I
ask you to reconsider your decision to settle this appropiate
lawsuit against a successful and predatory company.
Respectfully,
John Blanton
9421 Paigefield Ct.
Richmond, VA 23229-6258
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032830
From: Mary Wofford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Mary Wofford
1221 Charlane Ct.
St. Louis, MO 63119-1103
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032831
From: Leonard Tillerson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Leonard Tillerson
244 Osprey Circle
St. Marys, GA 31558-4101
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032832
From: Ronald Huston
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:18pm
[[Page 29914]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ronald Huston
1749 W. Placita de Vanegas
Tucson, AZ 85704-1000
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032833
From: Brian Baumgartner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/17/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Baumgartner
22365 El Toro Road, #421
Lake Forest, CA 92630
January 17, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Brian J. Baumgartner
MTC-00032834
From: James Rolen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Rolen
814 Sunshine Canyon Drive
Boulder, CO 80302-9727
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032835
From: emilio despirito
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
emilio despirito
234 croton ave
bedford corners, NY 10549-4033
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032836
From: David Beatty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
[[Page 29915]]
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Beatty
1106 Crossing Way NW
Cleveland , TN 37312-3061
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032837
From: Gene Ruminski
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Gene Ruminski
606 Pine Crest Drive
Heathsville, VA 22473-4305
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032838
From: Karin Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Karin Wilson
8306 West 90th Avenue
Westminster, CO 80021-4540
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032839
From: Mary Rogers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Mary Rogers
39 Windsor Drive
Tuscaloosa, AL 35404-4335
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032840
From: Michael Pehel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael Pehel
55 Hunters Lane
South Huntington, NY 11746-3934
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032841
From: Henry Ayre
[[Page 29916]]
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Henry Ayre
P. O. Box 2571
Soldotna, AK 99669-2571
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032842
From: LISA STEVENSON
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
LISA STEVENSON
813 RUTLEDGE ROAD
CHESAPEAKE, VA 23320-6021
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032843
From: michael lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
michael lewis
3440 quebec ave so
st louis park, MN 55426-4021
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032844
From: george flanigan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
george flanigan
602 ironwood
normal, IL 61761-5268
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032845
From: William Lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
William Lewis
5595 Caribou Trail
Stevensville, MI 49127-1310
[[Page 29917]]
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032846
From: James Braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in total support of the recent settlement of the
long-running, envy-driven 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 and harmful case.
The settlement is more than fair to all. It will allow
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers like
me more services and products to choose from.
As you should be 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,
tens of thousands of 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 us with great benefits
by lowering the cost, increasing the availability of software
products, and opening up an immediate worldwide access to knowledge.
We have stressed that Microsoft is a much admired 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 highly
successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Braly
451 Crestdale Lane
#163
Las Vegas, NV 89144-1005
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032847
From: jim gaines
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. As a long time
member of the computer industry I have seen Microsofts service to
the user community as a positive influence.
Respectfully,
jim gaines
603 w13 ste 1a-113
austin, TX 78701-1731
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032848
From: Ron Hendrix
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ron Hendrix
1374 Redondo Ct.
Los Lunas, NM 87031-9041
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032849
From: peter stebbins
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
peter stebbins
32 bradford st
concord, MA 01742-2940
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032850
From: Robert St. Louis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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. I am also
disappointed that this case was ever brought against Microsoft
Corporation. It seems that this country is bent on punishing
successful enterprises, usually at the urging of those that are less
imaginative and hard working.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to
[[Page 29918]]
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,
Robert St. Louis
#6 Ruby Mountain Estates
Spring Creek, NV 89815-5655
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032851
From: Jean Castagno
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jean Castagno
75 Fenwood Drive
Old Saybrook, CT 06475-3031
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032852
From: Christopher Boggs
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Christopher Boggs
120 Charles St.
Sulphur Springs, TX 75482-3504
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032853
From: Ernest Thabet
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ernest Thabet
3071 Clear Springs Court
Charlottesville, VA 22911-7219
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032854
From: Amanda Jervis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Amanda Jervis
2307 Englewood Ave
Durham, NC 27705-4014
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032855
From: Joseph Hull
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been
[[Page 29919]]
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,
Joseph Hull
Whispering Sands Ranch
CHS Star Route Box 66
Castle Hot Springs, AZ 85342-0066
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032856
From: Jeff Farnham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jeff Farnham
2353 Swindon Lane
Kernersville, NC 27284-4336
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032857
From: Loy Puckett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Loy Puckett
4108 S. Fall Ridge Dr.
Columbia, MO 65203-6629
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032858
From: Sumner Kibbe
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Sumner Kibbe
43 Horn Cove Road
Southport, ME 04576
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032859
From: Candy Scott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/17/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Candy Scott
317 White Oak Dr.
Lake Dallas, TX 75065
January 17, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense,
[[Page 29920]]
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,
Candy Scott
MTC-00032860
From: steve raulerson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
steve raulerson
11310 soforenko dr
jacksonville, FL 32218-4133
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032861
From: Luke Elliott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Luke Elliott
1252 Yorkshire
Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230-1106
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032862
From: Donald Phillips
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Donald Phillips
1220 s. 28th. st.
Broken Arrow, OK 74014-5015
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032863
From: Harold Beam
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Harold Beam
6191 Mountainside Drive
Hickory, NC 28601-9433
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032864
From: Christopher Woods
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29921]]
Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case,
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this
baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Christopher Woods
23911 Ash Lane
Mission Viejo, CA 92691-3010
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032865
From: Christopher Phair
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more
services and productsto choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years,
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys'
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have
stressed that
Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Christopher Phair
3217 St. Paul St.
Baltimore, MD 21218-3326
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032866
From: Igor and Maria PALLEY
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
We are writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though we applaud
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, we are thoroughly
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more
services and productsto choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years,
activists likeourselves have called, emailed, visited, and sent
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state
attorneys' general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions
did not harm consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by
lowering the cost and increasingthe availability of software
products. We have stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that theirproducts increased our familiarity
with the Internet.
Once again, we thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Igor and Maria PALLEY
18 Dean Street
MADISON, NJ 07940-2215
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032867
From: Dolores Hasse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more
services and productsto choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years,
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys'
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have
stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market
and that theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
What happened to free interprise and the desire to better one's
selfwith your ideas?
Respectfully,
Dolores Hasse
523 Opal Ave.
Klamath Falls, OR 97601-1037
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032868
From: Carrie Allen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more
services and productsto choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years,
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys'
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have
stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market
and that theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Carrie Allen
7912 Lowtide Circle
[[Page 29922]]
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2301
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032869
From: gleen murray
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
gleen murray
201 w mary st
bristol, VA 24201-4660
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032870
From: Andrew Grisham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Andrew Grisham
8713 Golden Gardens Dr. N. W.
Seattle, WA 98117-3942
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032871
From: Jacquelyn Currie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jacquelyn Currie
1933 Lakeshore Drive
Hot Springs, AR 71913-5425
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032873
From: Cindy Schierling
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 5:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Cindy Schierling
479 E. 341st Street
Lebo, KS 66856-9119
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032874
From: james m nordlund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 5:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james m nordlund
p.o.b. 982
Lakin, KS 67860-0982
January 18, 2002
Ms.Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
Hello! I would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29923]]
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 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.
Viva la evolution, viva green party! reality Thanx for your
attention and time.
Sincerely,
james m nordlund
MTC-00032875
From: George Buttery
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
George Buttery
14458 Hillview Drive
Largo, FL 33774-5033
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032876
From: ray lambright
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
ray lambright
3158 massieville rd.
chillicothe, OH 45601-8914
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032877
From: William Stoner
To: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
William Stoner
2020 Madison SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49507-3152
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032878
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/18/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft lobbying opportunity . . .
Gentlepeople:
Public comment on the Microsoft anti-trust case officially
closes January 28th. If, like me, you wish to make your ``two
cents worth'' heard, simply email your comments to Attorney
General John Ashcroft's anti-trust office at:
[email protected]. You can also let Microsoft read your
comments by emailing Microsoft at: [email protected]
. Here are my comments.
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
From the beginning I have regarded the anti-trust case against
Microsoft as bogus, just another tiresome example of socialist
religiosity imposing their dogma of business virtue in the form of
``perfect competition.''
As a Tolerant Party supporter, I, of course, am a critic of
unlimited government, of letting government do more than impose the
limited virtue of peace through enforcement of universal, natural,
human, individual rights.
[[Page 29924]]
There is no right to be kept competitive, or to have others kept
less competitive than one's self. The only legitimate competition-
related rights are those of freedom from fraud and defense of one's
property rights. Bundling evermore software programs into one's
browser, and not giving equal access to other firm's software, is a
browser owner's property right rather than a violation of such.
I hope that in this age of global terrorism by Al Queda's vice
and virtue squads you and other government leaders can relearn the
virtue of limited government. Just as we must defund terrorists by
legalizing the drug usage from which they derive so much illicit
income, we must stimulate the American economy by legalizing freedom
of competition. It is time to stop imposing our ruling elite's
religious convictions about unlimited perfection of society with
their wars on drugs, unfair competition, pornography, poverty, ad
nauseum.
The militarization of society in pursuit of unlimited moral
perfection leads to the destruction of such societies. When Rome
abandoned their tolerant religious policies and began forcing every
Roman to worship their new emperors as deities, Christianity became
uniquely important a resistance force to Roman oppression as
Christians alone refused to worship Rome's new emperor gods.
Christians were actually persecuted as ``atheists''
because of their anti-emperor-deity attitude. If Rome's decline into
unlimited ``virtue'' by government decree, the destruction
of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union's similar
decline should be instructive. However, Talliban Afghanistan's
theocracy shows how few rulers learn this history lesson.
Sincerely,
Robert Bakhaus
[email protected]
MTC-00032879
From: Samir Vyas
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samir Vyas
39 E. 9th St #209
Indianapolis, IN 46204
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Samir Vyas
MTC-00032880
From: Davie Kimbrell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support) Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Davie Kimbrell
PO Box 333
Southmont, NC 27351-0333
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032881
From: Daniel Bakstad
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/18/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As one of America's largest employers, Microsoft has been
unwisely targeted in this antitrust dispute, especially when you
consider the current state of the American economy. Microsoft is a
successful company, built by the standards of the American dream.
The attack on this company is an attack on the American dream.
The settlement that has been reached is a good one in spite of
the rather harsh terms that Microsoft will be complying with. For
example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use by
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to
Windows'' operating system products-a first in an antitrust
settlement. The most important thing, at this point, is just to get
this litigation behind us so we can focus on more important issues.
Thank you for all that you have done in bringing about this
settlement. Your decision to settle has shown true foresight and
wisdom on your part. Hopefully, the remaining nine states still
pursuing litigation will soon see the wisdom of this settlement.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Bakstad
1301 Stonehurst Dr
Anderson, SC 29621
MTC-00032882
From: Irene Wice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of
[[Page 29925]]
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Irene Wice
156 Windrose Driv e
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-3563
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032883
From: Janet Simonson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Janet Simonson
PO Box 1235
Suquamish, WA 98392-1235
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032884
From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charlotte Worden
MTC-00032885
From: Roger Cooper
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Roger Cooper
336 Live Oak Dr.
336 Live Oak Dr.
Vero Beach, FL 32963-9677
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032886
From: Michelle Fogle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:13pm
[[Page 29926]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michelle Fogle
24810 Northampton Forest Dr.
Spring, TX 77389-2911
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032887
From: Jerry Jones
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jerry Jones
5845 E Placita Alta Reposa
Tucson, AZ 85750-1096
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032888
From: James Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Smith
2671 Warwick Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30345-1633
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032889
From: CAROLE MARZ
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
CAROLE MARZ
P. O. Box 174
Chincoteague, VA 23336-0174
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032890
From: Stuart B. Holoman
To: To Whom It May Concern
Date: 1/18/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I understand that the address to which this email is being sent
is the proper address for making comments relative to the DoJ
proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft.
I believe that the proposed settlement is adequate and
sufficient to complete any dealings between the DoJ and Microsoft.
It seems to me that the provisions of the agreement are tough,
reasonable, and more than fair to all parties involved. I believe
completing this settlement is in the public interest and certainly
in my personal interest. It is time to let Microsoft get on with
their business and improve their products, of which I am a
continuous user. I believe it is time to allow Microsoft to stop
expending massive funds paying lawyers to defend itself against
these suits and allow those funds to be used for the improvement of
Microsoft products.
As a Microsoft stock holder, I believe that settlement of this
action will improve my equities position.
The proposed settlement is in my interest and the public
interest. The District Court reviewing the case should so find.
Thank you,
Stuart Holoman
2617 Countrywood Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
[email protected]
MTC-00032891
From: CONRAD ODENTHAL
[[Page 29927]]
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
CONRAD ODENTHAL
25575 SW LABROUSSE RD
SHERWOOD, OR 97140-8807
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032892
From: Andrew Horras
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Andrew Horras
7 Wheatfield Ct.
Collinsville, IL 62234-2239
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032893
From: Harris Hall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Harris Hall
777 S. Orange Grove Blvd.
Apartment #2
Pasadena, CA 91105-1761
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032894
From: Rosemary Cleland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rosemary Cleland
575 Hobson Street
Unit C
Bishop, CA 93514-2500
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032895
From: David Trend
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have
[[Page 29928]]
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,
David Trend
25 Lakeview Drive
Skillman, NJ 08558-2406
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032896
From: Benjamin Gronke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Benjamin Gronke
993 East Madison Street
Waterloo, WI 53594
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
Prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Osama Bin Laden had
already carried out numerous attacks against U.S. embassies and
military installations. However, prior to September 11, the United
States was spending more money chasing Bill Gates than it was
chasing Osama Bin Laden. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT BILL GATES GIVES
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CHARITY AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST? I
AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT MY GOVERNMENT SPENT MORE MONEY TRYING TO
DESTROY BILL GATES THAN IT DID TRYING TO DESTROY A MURDERER NAMED
OSAMA BIN LADEN!
Who's more dangerous? A businessman pursuing the American Dream,
or a guy that runs a terrorist organization aimed at killing
Americans? I think the majority of Americans would agree that a
terrorist is more of a threat.
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,
Benjamin Gronke
MTC-00032897
From: Les (038) Patricia Cowen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 5:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Les & Patricia Cowen
421 N. Turkey Pine Loop
Lecanto, FL 34461-8434
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032898
From: Thomas Dibble
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 5:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Dibble
21601 Redwing Ave
Jordan, MN 55352
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
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,
Thomas Dibble
MTC-00032899
From: Frank Corradino
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I write in support of the recent settlement of the long-running
antitrust lawsuit between
[[Page 29929]]
the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and
Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys
general that decided to follow the federal government's lead and
settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state
attorneys general and the District of Columbia have decided to
further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Frank Corradino
8540 Clinton Ave.
Rome, NY 13440-9354
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032900
From: hammondr
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally
Date: 1/19/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Honorable Judge Koller-Kotally:
We are writing this as a concerned citizens to express our
concerns in regards to the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement.
This Judgement does not deal with any of the three points with
which
Microsoft was viewed as having violated.
1. Their illegal monopoly
2. To deny Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, nor
3. To prevent any such future anti-competitive activity.
Microsoft should not be granted a government mandated monopoly.
Therefore we urge you not to accept the Proposed Final
Judgement.
Sincerely,
Rob and Shirley Hammond
Permanent address in US
312 Homecrest Dr
Willow Street, PA 17584-9449
In Austria,
Ocwirkgasse 9/4/9
A-1210 Vienna, Austria
E-Mail [email protected]
MTC-00032901
From: Richard Moss
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Richard Moss
212 E. Mission St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1045
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032902
From: Irving Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irving Smith
1618 Florida Ave.
Woodbridge, VA 22191
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Irving and Midge Smith -
MTC-00032903
From: S. Currie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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 extremely costly case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give
[[Page 29930]]
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, people 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,
S. Currie
34300 Wallis
Clinton Twp, MI 48035-3684
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032904
From: William Barrington
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
William Barrington
1506 Keel Drive
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1241
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032905
From: Bruce Butts
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Butts
4908 Breeze Way
Dumfries, VA 22026-1253
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bruce Butts
MTC-00032906
From: Robert Goodwyn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Goodwyn
4202 Pickering Place
Alexandria, VA 22309-2821
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29931]]
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,
Robert T. Goodwyn
MTC-00032907
From: Thomas Fraser
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Fraser
1604 E. Texas Ave.
Baytown, Tx 77520
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas B. Fraser
MTC-00032908
From: Gwen Luhring
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gwen Luhring
190 Madrone Ridge Dr
Grants Pass, OR 97527-9144
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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. 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. It's time to move on to other matters. Settle this
case.
Sincerely,
Gwen R. Luhring
MTC-00032909
From: Nina McCorkle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Nina McCorkle
637 Eisenhower St.
Davis, CA 95616-3030
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032910
From: Don Levy, M.A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlepeople:
I find it very disturbing that in the midst of being found a
monopoly, Microsoft demonstrated that even while under the close
scrutiny of the court it cannot resist trying to corner another
market segment: the schools. While it's true that this ploy was
rejected by the court as merely a hooded effort to knock Apple and
others out of the arena (in the guise of doing something for poor
children and at almost no real expense to Microsoft), I wonder if
the court can continue to be eager to not split Microsoft up, given
that kind of brazen disregard for the laws concerned with predatory
behaviors that can destroy competitors and damage the interests of
the public, both consumers and organizations.
Please reconsider your earlier backing away from dividing MS
into at least two entities, with tight monopoly controls. We deserve
competition, not what it appears we may get.
Sincerely,
Donald Levy
Loa Angeles, CA
MTC-00032911
From: Dean Nervik
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 29932]]
Dean Nervik
Route 8
Speculator, NY 12164
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dean Nervik
MTC-00032912
From: Edward M. Walsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 5:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward M. Walsh
6 Colonial Oaks Drive
Oak Ridge , NJ 07438-9158
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Edward M. Walsh
MTC-00032913
From: Richard Peck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Richard Peck
1822 Jackson Road
Penfield, NY 14526-1216
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032914
From: Stephen Schiller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Schiller
10920 Thanlet Lane
Reston, VA 20190-3921
January 20, 2002
[[Page 29933]]
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Stephen H. Schiller
MTC-00032915
From: MICHAEL PERRIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MICHAEL PERRIN
31111 INDUSTRIAL DR.
LIVONIA, MI 48150
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
MICHAEL PERRIN
MTC-00032916
From: Mike Durand
To: Attrny Gen Ashcroft
Date: 1/20/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard M. Durand
4109 Yarmouth Road
New Bern N.C. 28562
Home Phone 252-635-1503
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I have been a supporter of Microsoft from the very start of
these investigations and I am very gratified to see that the Justice
Department has finally decided to settle their antitrust suit. I
think it is about time we complete this case and move forward, as
three years was just too long.
I hope that the Justice Department appreciates how much that
Microsoft has sacrificed in order to reach a settlement and bring
this proceedings to an end. By giving up access to its software with
out recrimination as well as agreeing to design future versions of
Windows easier to use with competitors products, Microsoft is
forgoing an enormous amount of potential profit. Anyone who thinks
that the suit should continue after seeing the terms of this
settlement must be out to profit off of Microsoft's hard work.
It is a shame that nine states still refuse to settle. By trying
to support their own state budget shortfalls, they are hurting their
own constituents. I hope that their voters will make them realize
the error of their ways directly in order to end any further
litigation against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Durand
MTC-00032917
From: Thomas McWilliams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29934]]
baseless case. The settlement is fair to all. It will allow
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Thomas McWilliams
One Cessna Lane
Downers Grove, IL 60516-4901
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032918
From: Charles DeBrett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Charles DeBrett
P.O. Box 1475
Cave Junction, OR 97523-1475
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032919
From: Robert Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Martin
270 Decatur Road
Stafford, VA 22554
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
I also believe the cost of this lengthy litigation should ome
out of themonies Microsoft is paying in this case. The State will
settle their disputes faster if they know the longer they resist the
less money they will receive from the settlement pot!
Sincerely,
Robert Martin
MTC-00032920
From: B. Wehrung
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
B. Wehrung
702 Irving Royal Oak, MI 48067-2879
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
The message below was composed by Citizens Against Government
Waste and seems to be based on the idea that it cost a lot of money
to sue Microsoft Corp. I believe it was money well spent and it is
misguided to let them off so lightly, with a settlement that is so
favorable to the company. You can read the message if you like but
DO NOT APPROVE the settlement.
Brendan Wehrung
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29935]]
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 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,
B. Wehrung
MTC-00032921
From: Doug Skoglund
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/21/02 2:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Reference: Microsoft Settlement
In the Competitive Impact Statement, section I, Nature and
Purpose of the Proceeding, I quote the following:
The Proposed Final Judgment will provide, certain and effective
remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive relief to halt
continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations of the Sherman
Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the Court of Appeals and
restore competitive conditions to the market.
Now, it doesn't take a legal genius to read the text of the
Proposed Final Judgment and then have some serious doubt about the
accuracy of the above statement. My review of the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment, RPFJ, yields a great deal of confusion caused by
questionable definitions, exceptions, loopholes and other assorted
legal maneuvers that may or may not be relevant.
While I see the RPFJ as a great big expensive joke that does
nothing for the micro-computer business nor for the larger society,
as an ISV, Independent Software Vendor, I feel qualified to state
that the RPFJ does nothing to limit the enormous power of Microsoft
and its control over the business. While the object of these
proceedings is the punishment of Microsoft for past anti-trust
violations and prescription for future activity necessary to restore
competition, one should never loose sight of the tremendous
contribution Mr. Bill Gates and company have made to the development
of the PC business.
Let me repeat, one should never loose sight of the tremendous
contribution Mr. Bill Gates and company have made to the development
of the PC business. With a few exceptions, most everyone in the
business has operated within the shadow of Microsoft, which means
that, in addition to the many benefits, we've also been aware of
much of Microsoft's suspect activity, and we also were very well
aware of the consequences of ``whistle blowing''. It
should be understood that this general atmosphere of fear is more
important in limiting competition than any of the overt activity
that is the object of these proceedings.
I think that most people would recognize that the entire PC
business has grown as a function of and in the image of Microsoft.
But, it has outgrown even the imagination of Mr. Gates. It must be
broken free to allow growth in areas and ways that may be contrary
to his philosophy. Mr. Gates has done a remarkable job, we have made
him a very rich man, but it is time for others to get into the game.
It would be nice if Mr. Gates would allow the transition to occur
peacefully, he should have negotiated a settlement with Judge
Jackson long ago, but since he continues to resist the inevitable,
it's up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotelly and you, Mr. Charles A. James.
I want to emphasize that this entire proceeding has suffered
from non-participation by members of the PC business. I can imagine
the personnel of the Department of Justice being more than a little
piqued by the lack of qualified support from the industry. Yet it is
easy to understand the reluctance of industry members to pitch in,
what with careers on the line if the government lost this case. It
would seem, when one views the complete capitulation of the
Department of Justice, that the industry members have made the right
choice, If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is accepted by the
court, the people will have every right to conclude that Mr. Bill
Gates and company are more powerful than the United States
Government. Hey folks, you must not allow that to happen!!!!
Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial Proposals Plaintiff
Litigating States'' Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's
Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Exhibits to Plaintiff
Litigating States'' Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's
Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Now, here are three legal
documents that I can understand. I refer to all three since each has
a way of describing things that helps promote understanding. Not
being a legal expert maybe it's something like programming, you need
the program and then you need the documentation to explain what the
program does and how to use it.
It would be far too easy to say that I support the Litigating
States and end this document right here; however, I want to compare
my conclusions, as expressed in a previous post with the
``Exhibits'' conclusions on a couple of very key, to me,
points. One example: (my thoughts) (From definition of Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product) A Non-Microsoft Middleware product is any
product that both meets the definition of Non-Microsoft Middleware
and has at least one million copies distributed in the United States
within the previous year* * *
* * * Without limitations on the definition, any
software developer would be able to claim that any software product
was middleware and thereby insist on exercising options and
alternatives provided by the Proposed Final Judgment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that I cannot expect
protection from Microsoft illegal tactics against my
``Middleware''application purely because it is new and
therefore did not distribute one million copies last year. (29)
(from Exhibit) the RPFJ's middleware definitions are drawn too
narrowly, excluding from protection competitors of Microsoft in
critical middleware markets and excluding from the restrictions of
the judgment important Microsoft products--for example,
(a)software cannot qualify as a ``Non-Microsoft Middleware
Product'' unless at least one million copies were distributed
in the U.S. in the previous year, meaning that by definition nascent
or developing middleware threats receive no protection under the
user configuration flexibility remedy,* *
Another Example: (my thoughts)Subsection HI.C.3. requires that
Microsoft permit OEMs to configure their products to launch Non-
Microsoft Middleware automatically at the conclusion of the first
boot sequence* * *
The only limitation Microsoft may impose on OEMs in this
circumstance is that any Non-Microsoft Middleware the OEM configures
to launch automatically cannot display a user interface that is not
of similar size and shape* * *
This really doesn't make much sense as the primary purpose for
any competitive product might very well be to present a whole new
user interface.(10) (from Exhibit)the RPFJ imposes unjustifiable
qualifications in the provisions that appear to provide for
flexibility in product configuration(e.g., (i) Microsoft can limit
the addition of icons, shortcuts and menu entries for non-Microsoft
products to only those places where Microsoft has decided to promote
a Microsoft product with similar functionality (thus blocking such
additions if Microsoft does not make that decision and/or does not
offer a competing product), and (ii) the automatic launching of
competing software may be prohibited if such software displays a
user interface that is not of a similar size and shape to the
interface displayed by the equivalent Microsoft Software or a
Microsoft product would not otherwise launch automatically)
Critique of Remedial Proposals ``.
I don't pretend to have the knowledge and expertise to critique
the legal aspects of this document.
I do, however, have substantial engineering background and
programming experience to allow me to comment on some portions of
the document and to emphasize things that I perceive to be logical
shortcomings.
Definitions
This section may appear at the rear of a legal document;
however, since all else
[[Page 29936]]
depends onproper definitions, I want to discussthis subject first.
``Applications''--Programs that perform specific
tasks, such as accounting, word processing, or communications or any
other task that the user might require from a computer. Applications
connect to the operating system by accessing or calling APIs.
``API'' or ``Application Programming
Interface''--Program elements, routines or sections of
program code that are callable or otherwise accessible by other
program elements and/or applications for the purpose of performing
specific steps or portions of a task. Since one API can call other
APIs they may range from the very simple to the very complicated,
but, it should be emphasized that APIs are never accessed by end
users. (Some method of controlling acceptability of APIs is
required--see some of the discussion below)
``Operating System''--Program that controls the
low level processes of a computer and mediates between the
application program and the drivers that control the computer
hardware. The operating system schedules and controls the use of the
system's hardware resources. These hardware resources may include
memory, disk drives, printers, and CRTs. The Goal of a good
operating system is to simplify the use of the computer by providing
a common set of practical, easy-to-use commands (APIs) that bridge
the gap between the application programs and the actual physical
processing of the computer.
``Middleware''--A non-Microsoft application that,
in addition to performing specific tasks,exposes its own APIs for
use by application developers. For the purpose of these proceedings,
the definition of middleware must necessarily be short and specific.
If one does a search of the Internet, one will find that the term
has many meanings, and thus becomes meaningless for legal purposes.
In addition, Microsoft should not be allowed to use the term to
describe any Microsoft software because that only clouds the issue
of ownership or source of a specific API. In other words, all APIs
that Microsoft chooses to release should be considered part of the
operating system.
``Interpreter''--An application that can perform
specific tasks under control of a separate document or script. Basic
started as an interpreted language, but with the development of
compilers, that Basic script is generally converted into a binary
coded program. Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator and Java are
more properly classified as Interpreters. Since a script can only
give instructions to an interpreter, I suppose that Java might be
called middleware if the script is compiled into a program that is
actually run and then calls APIs itself. The distinguishing
characteristic is determined by which segment is executed under the
control of the computer's central processing unit, cpu.
``Operating System Product''--This is actually a
collection of files that make up the Operating System, some
associated applications and other related files. Since the basic
operating system is useless to the user, some applications must be
included,thus the need for this definition. And since Microsoft has
chosen to obfuscate the meaning of operating system by it's
philosophy of ``integration'', it has become necessary for
the court to decide the meaning of this term and control it's future
usage.
I don't intend to rewrite all the definitions, but, if one
accepts the above definitions, one can readily visualize the impact
on the balance of the court proceedings. Let's look at some
interesting information, developed by installing various Microsoft
operating systems, in turn, on the same machine.
Sorry, Windows XP would not install on this machine since it
requires 64 Mb memory and this machine only had 32 Mb and an
additional 32 Mb would have cost $100. (there's a limit to my
contribution to these proceedings) Besides, these numbers allow me
to make my point. Microsoft should have settled these anti-trust
matters years ago and they would have been able to pursue business
without governmental interference. Instead they chose to fight and
they lost. Legally, they are a monopoly and they have violated the
law. Their unwillingness to settle on reasonable terms necessitate
that they become a regulated monopoly. They must be required to
document all those files and directories so that a base point can be
established to firm up the meaning of ``Operating System
Product''. Future additions to the basic definition must be
controlled by some kind of regulating body.
Using the above definitions, MS-DOS is an operating system,
Windows for Workgroups might have been classified as an application
because the machine was booted in MS-DOS and W4W was run separately;
however, since it exposes APIs and is a Microsoft product it thus
becomes an operating system. Windows 95/98/2000/XP are operating
systems (after determination of a base point) because the machine is
booted directly into the respective system.
If we use Windows 95 to determine the base point, Internet
Explorer, an application by definition, is not part of the operating
system since it was introduced separately and then included with
Windows 98. In summary, Microsoft lost the right to ``integrate
applications into the operating system'', by violating the law.
If not this, then other application developers deserve the right to
have their similar applications integrated into the operating system
also.
Mandatory Disclosure to Ensure Interoperability
This section of the Remedial Proposals needs considerable work
in that it fails to recognize the existence of Microsoft Development
Network, MSDN, and more importantly, it fails to deal with the
quality of such disclosure. It should be understood that Microsoft
distributes all (I think) technical information to subscribers
dependent upon subscription level. In other words, you purchase the
level of information you require, no matter your other relationship
to Microsoft. I see this as satisfactory, if the court determines
that Microsoft personnel also use the MSDN documentation. The
difficulty with the present system is the method of developing APIs.
It is obvious to developers using MSDN that many APIs were developed
for Microsoft application use and then documented and added to MSDN.
This, of course, means that Microsoft personnel have been using the
API for considerable time before outsiders have had access.
A well controlled monopolist should be expected to develop APIs
for broad usage and let inside programmers determine usage the same
as outside ones. The broad usage requirement should be interpreted
to mean that the basic lowest level API must be documented. I quote
from ``MFC Programming with Visual C++ 6 Unleashed'',
copyright 1999 by Sams Publishing. The Microsoft Foundation Classes
are an excellent example of how an object-oriented approach to
packaging software functionality can lead to code reuse, reduced
application complexity, and in the end, a more efficient software
development environment.
MFC has been around for seven years now. The first version of
MFC was release with version 7 of Microsoft's 16-bit C/C++ compiler,
and it represented little more than a wrapper around the Window GDI
(Graphics Device Interface) call. The author goes on to emphasize
the benefits of MFC to the programmer and de-emphasize the costs to
the ultimate user.
Programs, including code stored in associated files, are larger
(amount of memory required) and operate slower. Microsoft has
developed additional features/dialects (?) such as COM, ATL, .NET
aimed at the benefits to the programmer without much consideration
for the user, after all, additional memory and disc space is cheap
and faster computers are being developed all the time. Microsoft has
tended to use these higher level approaches in their applications,
and then document the higher level APIs. If the propose of these
proceedings is to restore competition, Microsoft must be forced to
document the entire structure of a higher level API, which means
that the basic API should be demonstrated in a sample program
written in C/C++ without all the frills.
As a matter of fact, the sample program should be capable of
compiling with a competitive compiler. One should be aware of the
hidden advantage Microsoft accrues with this programming philosophy.
The more an individual programmer and a programming organization
ties itself to MFC and these other dialects the more ``locked
in'' they become and the more their programs look and feel like
Microsoft programs. True competition with Microsoft can only occur
at the basic API level.
Internet Browser Open-Source License
This provision is unnecessary since the Browser APIs are now
available through MSDN. What is required, however, is more control
over the size of acceptable segmentation. Any programmer could take
a complete application, enclose it in a DLL, dynamic link library,
set up the call linkage and then call it from a skeleton
application. The application now becomes middleware; but, the
purpose has been compromised. Calling the resultant API would be no
different than running the original program. The segmentation, must
be small enough to allow another programmer to use some of the APIs
to build a distinctly different application.
[[Page 29937]]
What is needed about Internet Explorer is better segmentation.
For example, there is an API, Navigate, part of Web Browser Control,
that includes both the access to a web page and the display of that
web page. The net effect of this shortcoming is to prevent a
programmer from controlling the access to the Internet. In other
words, use of this API might very well allow Microsoft to include
Internet access desired by Microsoft without the users, or the
programmers knowledge. Oh, Microsoft might argue my point as some of
the Internet calls are available for examination; however, they will
have to explain why *ALL* of the calls are not available.
Internal Compliance
The Remedial Proposal devotes considerable words to the subject
of compliance including the appointment of a Special Master. I only
wish to add to these recommendations by pointing out a way of
developing a measurement mechanism that can be used to establish
goals and measure progress towards those goals, assuming that the
big broad general goal is to improve service to the customer.
The philosophy is simple;--execution, well, that may be
another thing. A proper amount of ``encouragement'' from
the court should turn the trick.
All that is required is a monitored, measured, Internet support
forum/s. There are all kinds of forums and chat groups on the
Internet right now, some monitored, others unmonitored. I am
speaking about monitoring by qualified, empowered, personnel,
qualified to answer many questions and empowered to get answers from
more qualified personnel if necessary.
But, far more important is the measurement mechanism. Since each
request/question/complaint is a single document, it can be
classified by the submitter, dated and timed by the computer. The
response can be classified by the respondent, dated and timed by the
computer. The software can then keep track of response times,
quantities entered, closed and still open, by category, on a daily,
weekly or monthly basis. This type of system could replace the
Periodic Reports called for in the Remedial Proposal.
Windows Operating System Licenses
Mandatory Disclosure to Ensure Interoperability
Intellectual Property Rights
These sections seem to be unnecessarily complicated, using terms
like OEM, Covered OEM, Third-Part Licensee, which are all meant to
exclude. I would think that subscription to MSDN could be the sole
determinant controlling licensing and the distribution of technical
information. Subscription to MSDN at the Operating System level or
above should include one copy of each current operating system with
the right to purchase, and re-sell, additional copies according to a
discount schedule based upon yearly quantity. Many computers are
assembled by small companies that should be able to re-sell licenses
to the operating system.
In addition, a ``fair use'' type of clause should be
required in software licensing that would permit installation on
multiple machines used by a single or limited number (family) of
individuals. Most companies allow this since enforcement is very
difficult, but Microsoft has chosen to restrict this kind of use
with very intrusive procedures. I recognize that this might be a
matter for Congress, but, I wanted to bring up the subject anyway.
Under the title of ``Equal Access'', Microsoft is allowed
to restrict access to information about any bona fide joint
development effort. I would think that joint development efforts
should be restricted to applications only and even then be under
very strict control. This exception is too large a loop hole to be
allowed a monopoly.
Obviously the structure and pricing of MSDN should be controlled
by the court.
Respectfully submitted:
Doug Skoglund
Sands Software, Inc.
14766 Endicott Way
Apple Valley, MN 55124-6405
952/423-3041
P.S. Bill Gates is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!
Have I got your attention????????
First, I don't pretend to be some sort of all knowing guru with
the things that I have written or will write. I do, however, claim
to be pretty good at distilling the wisdom out of things that other
people have said and written. Let me illustrate: The following from
a column by Jim Rapoza titled ``Microsoft Still Suffers
Insecurity Complex'', posted on eWeek web site, January 7,
2002.
When Microsoft introduced active content in Outlook, we, along
with many in the security community, said it would create a security
risk. But Microsoft blew these warnings off as theoretical and,
instead, touted the gains that would be made by making mail more
automatically responsive... ...I think that worries about potential
security risks will always be pushed aside to make way for latest
cool, new feature. True, Jim, but one might say that Microsoft knows
what sells. Next, let me set the framework for further discussion. I
can imagine that most every business person has contemplated the
question of honesty vs. success. She/he discovers very early that
when a business is small, fighting for survival, total and complete
honesty will get you nowhere. Growth requires aggressive action to
get that next larger contract or chunk of business.
And that aggressive action means the acceptance of a few small
lies (or information not disclosed). I'll bet that the early
relationship between Microsoft and IBM had its share of less than
100% honesty. I don't need to beat the honesty point to death,
except to say that we will get disagreement all over the place
before we settle down and except the wisdom of the above.
The point that is missing is that the requirement for honesty
increases with success, and that is the critical point that Bill
Gates has missed. He continues to act as though he believed that
strategy as a successful company must be the same that was necessary
to become successful.
Of course, boiling this all down to honesty is far too simple.
That's the reason for using the security example above. During the
growth process, it's the cool, new feature that sells. What Bill
Gates fails to recognize and that Jim Rapoza, as one member of the
business, is saying is, ``Microsoft, it's time to truly start
considering the needs of your customers. Security is important, and
you can't continue to ignore the warnings''.
To emphasize my point, I think that we have to see these anti-
trust proceedings for what they really are. Most people would
concede that Bill Gates could have settled this whole thing a few
years back and that Microsoft would be free to conduct business
without much governmental interference. Remember, the anti-trust
laws exist to protect the consumer and that the government really
does represent the people. The government had to step in because Mr.
Gates failed to transition his company from aggressive corporate
fighter to good corporate citizen. He has had all kinds of notice,
if he had only mined the wisdom from the words of his critics
instead of viewing everything through his paranoid tinted glasses.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Gates can still wake up and settle this
matter, but he must allow the government to win. There is no
question that Microsoft has the power and resources to beat the
government in the short run, but Mr. Gates must recognize that he is
really flipping the finger at the consumer if he does. Remember, the
government is us, the people, the consumers. I suspect that we will
get the last laugh over a longer period of time. Since settling as
spelled out in the RPFJ is a win for Microsoft, the settlement must
be according to the Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial
Proposals, with my revisions, of course. There is nothing in these
proposals and revisions designed to hurt Microsoft.
On the contrary, they are only detailing changes necessary for
Microsoft to become a good corporate citizen. All of these things
should have been incorporated by Microsoft over the years in what
should have been a natural transition to a more honest, ethical
operation.
One final point, the market wants a single, stable, reliable,
secure operating system, under the control of a strong, honest,
ethical, reliable monopoly. True competition in applications
requires nothing less. Microsoft could fill that need; however, past
performance indicates that the Microsoft monopoly needs to be
regulated. The Department of Justice, the litigating Attorneys
General and the Courts must get that point across to Mr. Bill Gates
and company. The previous does not mean that there is not room for
other operating systems. There will always be niches open to other
approaches and nothing to stop alternatives from out-performing the
established monopoly. After all, the non-monopolies have more
freedom of action. That, of course, is the idea behind controlling a
monopoly.
Do I have a dog in this fight??--You betcha!!
Of course, I have a vested interest in the outcome of these
proceedings, but then, who doesn't?? I believe that my Personal
Digital Multimedia ScrapBook, PDMSB, is an application that is built
upon an engine that, in the hands of Microsoft or a competitor,
could open a whole new generation of application development on the
desktop. The RPFJ contains exclusions that would inhibit the growth
of this engine as a true contender;
[[Page 29938]]
however the Remedial Proposals seem to provide protection for any
potential competitor.
I said previously that Bill Gates was wrong. His present
emphasis on the Internet seems to have left the industry with the
attitude that Microsoft owns the Desktop and that further
development in this area is over. Wrong, the Internet, while very
important, will never replace the Desktop in the minds of the
average user. After all, the whole (DeskTop) is equal to the sum of
its parts (Internet activity vs. Local activity). I repeat, the
PDMSB engine in the hands of someone like AOL Time Warner, for
example, could open a whole new generation of application
development on the desktop.
Because PDMSB is still a work in process, the basic software has
been available at http://www.pdmsb.com for some four years, while
copies of various contact attempts have been available at http://
www.ifihadmyway.com. If anyone would like an interesting view of the
status of the PC business I would suggest interviewing some of
addressees of those contact attempts, (under oath, maybe?).
Obviously, Microsoft has every right to make incorrect
decisions. The difficulty comes from the fact that as the monopoly
supplier of the dominant operating system, the entire industry is
dragged in a direction they may not want to go. Just as the Remedial
Proposals require Microsoft to support old versions of operating
systems, MSDN must be required to support the basic APIs to allow
application developers to develop competitive applications. Whether
I'm right or wrong is of no matter, what does matter; however, is
that present Microsoft dominance prohibits open debate of my and/or
many other ideas. Of course, I want to sell my software, but I'm
just small potatoes, how many others might have a dog in this fight
also?? Even the top management of AOL Time Warner were unwilling to
investigate my proposals. I would hope that the business could be
more open than that. Rejection after evaluation is one thing, being
ignored is another!!
MTC-00032922
From: Deanna Tachna
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Deanna Tachna
1137 Stanley
Birmingham, MI 48009-1949
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Deanna Tachna
MTC-00032923
From: R. Suter Hudson
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/21/02 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please read the Microsoft Word 2000 document relative to the
Microsoft Settlement.
Thank you.
MTC-00032923 0001
R. Suter Hudson
2714 Royal Road
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my feelings about the recent events in
the Microsoft anti-trust litigation. I am glad to see that a
settlement has finally been reached. However, I can't understand how
this case could be prolonged any further. The settlement was
negotiated with the help of mediators provided by the courts, so
obviously the settlement should be fair.
Microsoft did have some problems, but they are now being
resolved by way of this settlement. They are allowing their
competitors to use the technologies that they invented, creating a
more competitive environment. They are also allowing computer makers
to install other products on Windows when they distribute the
computers. All of this seems more than reasonable. I used
Microsoft's products in my job as a Research Scientist and now use
them at home. I like the fact that all of my programs are compatible
with one another and that I can easily manipulate them. Why would I
want to change that by using a combination of competitive products
that aren't even compatible?
Please do your part in ending this lawsuit, for the interest of
consumers and the entire economy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
R. Suter Hudson
CC:
Senator Rick Santorum
Representative George W. Gekas
MTC-00032923--0002
MTC-00032924
From: Orna Benison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have
[[Page 29939]]
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,
Orna Benison
145 Westminster St
Hartford, CT 06112-1372
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032925
From: James Leydon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Leydon
408 Chandlee Drive
Berwyn, PA 19312
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
JamesPatrickLeydon
MTC-00032926
From: leonard judickas
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
leonard judickas
30 s.walla walla dr
cherokee village, AR 72529-2005
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032927
From: Patrick Whalen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Whalen
P O BOX 713
Boonton, NJ 07005-0713
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29940]]
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Patrick Whalen
MTC-00032928
From: Joseph Ezar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Joseph Ezar
32833 Merritt Drive
Westland, MI 48185-1558
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032929
From: David Upton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Upton
200 Ridgeway
St. Joseph, MI 49085-1000
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032930
From: Harry Beckner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Harry Beckner
2712 Casey Key Road
Nokomis, FL 34275-3358
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032931
From: Susan Wilson
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/21/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter.
MTC-00032931 0001
Susan Wilson
3018 Pickfair Street
Orlando, Florida 32803-6831
January 20,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
It is my belief that the Microsoft Antitrust case should never
have been brought to court. Microsoft's innovations and marketing
techniques have allowed this company to climb to the top of its
industry and the success that Microsoft has accomplished is well
deserved. We would not have seen the tremendous growth of the
Internet and the great numbers of home computers without the
innovations and uniformity of the Windows platforms. For the past
three years, litigation has stunted Microsoft's business potential a
great deal and to carry this case on further would be a highly
unnecessary course of action. Litigating Microsoft does not come at
an easy cost as this case has been very time- consuming and cost a
great deal of money. In some very key issues, I believe it has
caused more harm than good as would anyone who is familiar with
computing prior to the great growth of Microsoft.
The Department of Justice and Microsoft have disputed this case
for over three years now with the intent to appease all of the
parties involved. Microsoft has agreed to several terms beyond the
scope of this case in order to continue new product development,
which shows Microsoft's willingness to compromise. Some specific
terms range anywhere from allowing computer makers to promote the
competition within the Windows configuration to supplying the
competition with necessary interfaces and protocols that will
enable-software compatibility.
These agreements have come as a result of heavy dispute and much
compromise and will serve the best interest of all involved. Thank
you for consideration for the public good.--
Sincerely,
Susan Wilson
cc: Representative Ric Keller
MTC-00032931--0002
MTC-00032932
From: Donna Price
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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
[[Page 29941]]
Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Donna Price
33 McConnell Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5831
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032933
From: joy schroeder
To: [email protected]@integw
Date: 1/21/02 11:18am
Subject: lawsuit
CC: Microsoft ATR
MTC-00032933 0001
3150 Candlewood Way
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Three years of lawsuits against Microsoft and a settlement has
finally occurred in the antitrust case. I am glad to see that
Microsoft will not be broken up, but I do think that the terms of
the settlement are too harsh. Microsoft has demonstrated no
monopolistic tendencies since it has always delivered quality
products at reasonable prices. It has also not infringed on my
rights as a consumer, since I have on occasion bought other software
that I thought was better.
The terms of the settlement are more than fair and should
appease all parties involved in dispute. Competitors will now be
granted broad new rights to configure Windows so they can promote
their own products and they will be given internal interfaces and
protocols that Microsoft has for its Windows operating systems.
These concessions and more represent a huge advantage to competitors
and so there is not need for further litigation. But clever people
like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate
ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
It is in the best interests of the American people for the
settlement to be finalized and to allow the competitors to duke it
out on the playing field. Please make the right decision in the
coming months. Thank you for your time. 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.
Sincerely,
MTC-00032933--0002
1 of 2
02/06/2002 9:16 AM
file:///C/win/temp/tmp.htm
Joy Schroeder
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com.
MTC-00032933--0003
??of2
02/06/2002 9:16 AM
MTC-00032934
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/21/02 11:45am
Subject: Agreement with Microsoft
I feel the Agreement with Microsoft is fair and proper for all,
and wish for the agreement to be accepted and stop this expensive
litigation, It is fair to all.
Howard F. Renforth
144 Crosstide Circle
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082-4028
(904) 285 9302
MTC-00032935
From: Robert Minnoe
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Robert Minnoe
220 Channel Run Drive
New Bern, NC 28562-8915
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032936
From: Paul Borgen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Paul Borgen
3255 115th Ave NE, #153
Bellevue, WA 98004-7795
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032937
From: Cheryl Larson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,
[[Page 29942]]
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,
Cheryl Larson
5810 S. 232nd Place
Kent, WA 98032-6475
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032938
From: Carol Carlisle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Carol Carlisle
1916 E 10th st
The Dalles, OR 97058-3967
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032939
From: Eugene Mouncer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Eugene Mouncer
P.O. Box 117
Satsop, WA 98583-0117
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032940
From: Donna Lange
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Donna Lange
15 Greenacres Rd.
Riverside, WA 98849-9625
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032941
From: Judith Guse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Judith Guse
1515 S. Garfield PL
Kennewick, WA 99337-4063
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032942
From: Leslie Griffin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal
[[Page 29943]]
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. I personally have benefited from Microsoft's
technology and windows...making it easy for me, an older computer
user, to attempt expanding into computer research and use. I think
the attack on Microsoft has hurt consumers and the economy of our
state. If you attack the most innovative companies, how will the
economy grow?! Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle
this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative
company.
Respectfully,
Leslie Griffin
1010 ``E'' Court
PO Box 1583
Deer Park, WA 99006-1583
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032943
From: Bruce Troth
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Bruce Troth
120 SE Everett Mall Way #735
Everett, WA 98208-3293
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032944
From: Clarence Atchison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
My wife and I support of the recent settlement of the antitrust
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys
general and Microsoft Corporation. We appreciate and applaud the
nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case; however, we are extremely
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia have decided to continue, with no apparent basis, to
pursue this case.
We truly believe that the settlement is fair and just to all
concerned and possibly affected. The settlement allows Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and gives consumers (like me and
my wife) more services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, or should be, Citizens for a Sound
Economy, of which my wife and I are members, have been continually
opposed to the federal government's antitrust case against
Microsoft. It has done nothing but hurt our economy, especially in
the markets of computer technology. For nearly 3 years, activists
like myself and my wife 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 instead provided consumers like us with great
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of
software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology
market and I can't imagine a world without what Microsoft has made
available to us. Microsoft has only benefited the consumer!!!
Thanking you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Clarence and Gay Atchison
7029 16th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115-5734
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032945
From: Dennis Martin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
The case for anti-trust action has not been made and a
settlement is in hand. I think it is time to end the attorneys greed
and political power shuffle. The market has suffered enough. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Dennis Martin
10813 42 Drive SE
Everett, WA 98208-9720
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032946
From: Tyler Wate
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Tyler Wate
802 45th st N.E. Apt#9-103
Auburn, WA 98002-1386
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032947
From: Ara Leigh
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/21/02 3:40pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
Dear Official: It is most accurate to say that my dismay at the
attacks on Microsoft in the form of Anti-Trust prosecution was
profound. In America the moral of the day is ``take everything
you can get,'' and this time they will ``get'' it
from a company that has given more to the consumer than most.
Microsoft had the goal to succeed. Quite frankly, the other
companies could not compete because their products were not as
favored by the consumer. During my training to become a real estate
agent I becamse appalled that I could not talk to other agents about
fees, because that would violate anti-
[[Page 29944]]
trust. At that time I realized that anyone who excels too much is in
danger of being cut down thru anti-trust prosecution. When this
happened to Microsoft, I was not surprised, just appalled. I realize
that you must operate within the law. It is simply important that
you know how the citizens, of which I am one, believe and feel on
this subject.
Sincerely,
Ara Leigh
3628 NW Endicott St
Camas, WA 98607-8234
MTC-00032948
From: James Ringrose
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Ringrose
3681 Harris Rd. S.E.
Port Orchard, WA 98366-5935
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032949
From: Floyd Stewart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Floyd Stewart
4045 N. Deer Lake Rd.
Loon Lake, WA 99148-9746
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032950
From: Richard Deming
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Richard Deming
2427 Coal Creek Road
Longview, WA 98632-9688
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032951
From: Donald Andrews
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Donald Andrews
510 North Maple St.
Colville, WA 99114-3016
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032952
From: John Field
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to
[[Page 29945]]
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,
John Field
29312 NE 16th Place
Carnation, WA 98014-9644
MTC-00032953
From: Oscar Engfer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Microsoft has been hurt enough so I am writing in support of the
recent settlement of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the
U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft
Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case,
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this
baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Oscar Engfer
PO Box 26
Orting, WA 98360-0026
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032954
From: James H and Alice L Stevens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James H and Alice L Stevens
Post Office Box 728
Asotin, WA 99402-0728
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032955
From: Cameron Quinn Lauseng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02 4:52pm
Subject: Settlement Problems
I am sorely dissappointed with our Justice Department for
obvious lack of judgement in creating such a soft and ineffectual
settlement against Microsoft. This settlement has little more effect
than the previously issued injuction against Microsoft, which they
flagerantly violated. This current settlement does nothing to
address this serious defiance of the American Justice system, does
not address the demonstrated contempt of the American Justice
System, and does nothing to remedy the half decade of damage to the
American public that Microsoft's dramatically illegal behaviour
caused.
Furthermore, because this settlement fails to declare remedy for
these past serious abuses of our laws, it will prove to be no more
capable of restraining Microsoft's behaviour. Indeed, it can be
found that Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows XP, may
already be in violation of the settlement, by requiring consumers to
subscribe to Microsoft services on the internet in order to get full
use of features of the software.
I would consider this rather prejudiced against other middleware
providers that already offer these services that Microsoft is
requiring subscription to. I continue to be astonished at the short-
sightedness of elements in our Justice system concerning this case.
How can anybody seriously think that such a minor settlement will do
anything to prevent future violations against the American public,
considering past behaviour. Does the DOJ care nothing that Microsoft
violated the previous consent decree within months of its issuance?
I would also like to point out that the form of this settlement
requires a rather expensive on-going enforcement by State and
Federal agencies. This will prove to be dramatically expensive to
the American taxpayers in the long run. Would not a firm and
definitive remedy that provided an automatic mechanism of future
competative operations (split up) prove to be much less expensive to
the American people? With the enforcement mechanism currently
provided for in this settlement, the American people can expect a
protracted period of history of expensive court proceedings,
remedies, judgements, filings, etc., and even an entire government
agency just for the maintenance of this one settlement.
Though Jackson's behaviour was deplorable, I can't see that the
breakup judgement could be set aside so easily. This only proves
that our judges are not blind to subjectivity. One spoke out, the
other one who turned it around so quickly made just as loud a
statement. There is no difference in the lack of objectivity of
either of the judges involved.
Cameron Lauseng
Whitmore Lake, MI
MTC-00032956
From: Eugene (038) Ileene Rhodes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
We are 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 we applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, we are thoroughly
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, we thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Eugene & Ileene Rhodes
945-12th Street NE
Auburn, WA 98002-4205
[[Page 29946]]
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032957
From: Patricia Herbold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Patricia Herbold
13658 N.E. 37th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005-1418
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032958
From: David Vertz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Vertz
6115 58th Ave Se
Lacey, WA 98513-4181
MTC-00032959
From: Michael Dilley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael Dilley
4027 161st Ave SE
Bellevue, WA 98006-1860
MTC-00032960
From: Rodney Newbound
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rodney Newbound
22058 State Route 9
Mount Vernon, WA 98274-8071
MTC-00032961
From: James Malinowski
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
I have been a user of computer equipment my entire career as an
Electrical Power Professional Engineer and have profited in many
professional and personal ways from the personal computer
revolution. Microsoft has been the leader in this revolution
providing wonderful products at very reasonable prices. The most
wonderful product was DOS and Windows which provided standardized
platforms for develpment of many wonderful and powerful user
programs.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
[[Page 29947]]
Respectfully,
James Malinowski
P.O Box 127
Amboy, WA 98601-0127
MTC-00032962
From: Paul Knight
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Paul Knight
3930 Country Club Dr, NW
Olympia, WA 98502-3711
MTC-00032963
From: Lucinda Sexton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I think it a shame that the company which has created more
millionaires in the history of the world is being hounded by our own
government.
It's obvious to me that Microsoft doesn't completely monopolize
the computer industry, because we have used Apple computers for the
past several years. Infact, we currently have, and use, both a
Perform and a G-3.
Leave Microsoft alone & get on with finding &
prosecuting terrorists.
Respectfully,
Lucinda Sexton
12701-106th Av Ct E
4441 S. Meridian PMB# 222
Puyallup, WA 98374-2714
MTC-00032964
From: Ralph Hintze
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Ralph Hintze
16221 SE 175th Pl.
Renton, WA 98058-9101
MTC-00032965
From: Judith Peterson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 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 case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
Members of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in
our opposition to the federal government's antitrust case against
Microsoft. Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided
them with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the
high-technology market and their products have increased our
familiarity with the internet.
Thank your for your decisions to settle this unfortunate lawsuit
against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Judith Peterson
238 Oxbow Rd.
Woodland, WA 98674-9291
MTC-00032966
From: Herbert O. Jr. ABURN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert O. Jr. ABURN
5109 First St., North
Arlington, VA 22203-1207
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29948]]
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,
Herbert O. Aburn, Jr.
MTC-00032967
From: Pete Dakan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Quite frankly, I don't even know who you are or how you fit into
the Microsoft suit. The words below drafted by the Citizen group
express well enough why the suit should be settled immediatlely and
I can only assume you have some influence on the outcome.
I would like you to consider the fact that people need to be
responsible for their own actions--everyone has a choice. It is
not your job nor that of any politician to make decisions for
individuals.
Please allow people to run their own lives without government
interference. At the end of the day just ask yourself how you
contributed to the real personal accountability and responsibilty of
Americans. If you didn't, you should be ashamed. This is a small
issue in the scheme of things but the trend is definitely in the
wrong direction for a strong future for America.
I support the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Pete Dakan
12821 S.E. 285th St.
Kent, WA 98031-8875
MTC-00032968
From: Steve Wolf
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Steve Wolf
459 145th PL NE
Bellevue, WA 98007-4935
MTC-00032969
From: Sidney Porter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Sidney Porter
4407--52nd Ave. SW
Seattle, WA 98116-3905
MTC-00032970
From: Benjamin Green
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Green
8317 Earl Ave. NW
Seattle, WA 98117-4531
[[Page 29949]]
MTC-00032971
From: Tom Ramus
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Tom Ramus
8722 17th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117-3505
MTC-00032972
From: Rachel Braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rachel Braly
10833 Meadow Garden Ct.
Las Vegas, NV 89135
MTC-00032973
From: Charles Burpee II
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Charles Burpee II
202 Schmid St.
Enumclaw, WA 98022-7436
MTC-00032974
From: Andy Neault
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Andy Neault
24807 SE 224th St
Maple Valley, WA 98038-6629
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Econonmy
MTC-00032975
From: Rocky Bisogno
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
[[Page 29950]]
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Rocky Bisogno
1821 SW 349 PL
Federal Way, WA 98023-6904
MTC-00032976
From: COL (R) Ron Averill
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
COL (R) Ron Averill
2523 Graf Rd
Centralia, WA 98531-9087
MTC-00032977
From: Anthony Gill
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Gill
16314 Mink Rd NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Anthony Gill
MTC-00032978
From: Wendy Gaskill
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Wendy Gaskill
35405 23rd Ave SW C16
Federal Way, WA 98023-3159
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032979
From: Gary Hansen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from. As you are well aware, members
of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in our
opposition to the federal government's antitrust case against
Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself have called,
emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice
and to state attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's
actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with great
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of
software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in
the high-technology market and that their products increased our
familiarity
[[Page 29951]]
with the Internet. Once again, I thank you for your decision to
settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative
company.
Respectfully,
Gary Hansen
32028 SE 307th st
Ravensdale, WA 98051
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032980
From: Lynn Butner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 5:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Lynn Butner
121 Spring Street
Boonville, NC 27011-8463
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032981
From: stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
stephen Flaherty
801 South Pitt Street
427
Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032982
From: Jack Clark
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jack Clark
5134 Ad El Rd SE
Olympia, WA 98513-9208
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032983
From: Prof. Alexander G.Ramm
To: Attorney general
Date: 1/22/02 6:28am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement.
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing because I support ending the antitrust case against
Microsoft. Though I have not intensely followed the case, I know
about the pending settlement. I would like to see the settlement
finalized.
Microsoft is a great company that makes products that have
become important to peoples' lives and businesses. Microsoft
should be allowed to function properly according to the terms of the
settlement. By disclosing its internal Windows computer codes to its
competitors, who will also be free to add their own software to
Windows and remove Microsoft's Microsoft has gone a long, long way
to help its weaker competitors. The longer the case is active the
more the American economy suffers, which affects more than the
company itself. Please end the suit against Microsoft. It has been
going on long enough.
Sincerely,
Alexander Ramm
721 Elling Drive
Manhattan, KS 66502
Professor Alexander G.Ramm
Mathematics Department,
Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506-2602,
Phones: 785-532-6750 (math. dept) FAX
785-532-0546 (math.dept) email: [email protected]
http://www.math.ksu.edu/ramm
MTC-00032984
From: John Cosman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,
[[Page 29952]]
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,
John Cosman
768 SW 13th Avenue
Oak Harbor, WA 98277-4509
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032985
From: John Harding
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
John Harding
5906 143rd St SE
Everett, WA 98208-9339
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032986
From: David Hunt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
David Hunt
13522 240th St. NE
Arlington, WA 98223-8551
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032987
From: Edward Carmody
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this, what I
believe baseless, unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and
innovative company.
Respectfully,
Edward Carmody
12024 106th Ave Ct E
Puyallup, WA 98374-2605
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032988
From: James Barfoot
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Barfoot
2817 202nd Ave CT E
Sumner, WA 98390-9005
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032989
From: Tom Evans
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
[[Page 29953]]
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,
Tom Evans
201 180th St Ct E
Spanaway, WA 98387-4610
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032990
From: Chris Hamilton
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02 8:35am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
Sincerely,
Chris Hamilton
3700 Pacific Ave Ste A
Olympia, WA 98501-2165
MTC-00032991
From: James Dunning
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Dunning
1335 17th ST SE #B
Auburn, WA 98002-6974
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032992
From: Robert Reinhardt
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Reinhardt
67 Adair Ct.
Malverne, NY 11565
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert C. Reinhardt
MTC-00032993
From: Thomas Rekdal
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Thomas Rekdal
7558 Ravenna Ave. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115-4662
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032994
From: Greg Ashley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Ashley
PO Box 357
Clay City, Il 62824-0357
January 22, 2002
[[Page 29954]]
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Greg Ashley
MTC-00032995
From: Marilyn Kittelman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Marilyn Kittelman
2303 Elkhead Rd.
Yoncalla, OR 97499-9728
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00032996
From: Henry W, Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry W, Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Henry W. Rambacher
MTC-00032997
From: Claude Ross
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Claude Ross
P.O. Box 388
Sequim, WA 98382-0388
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
[[Page 29955]]
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Claude M. Ross
MTC-00032998
From: F, Noreen Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
F. Noreen Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
F. Noreen Rambacher
MTC-00033000
From: Joyce Hughes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Hughes
4904 Lake Cecile Drive
Kissimmee, FL 34746-5158
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for
[[Page 29956]]
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,
Joyce E. Hughes
MTC-00033001
From: Robert Mattox
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Mattox
1489 Cardinal Dr.
St. Joseph, MI 49085
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert E. Mattox
MTC-00033002
From: Penny Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Penny Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Penny Rambacher
MTC-00033003
From: Franklyn Diller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklyn Diller
9504 Croton Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45242
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and
[[Page 29957]]
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 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,
Franklyn D. Diller
MTC-00033004
From: Richard Rath
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Rath
10 Duxbury Hts.
Fairport, NY 14450
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard Rath
MTC-00033005
From: Colleen Wise
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Colleen Wise
916 114th Ave E
Edgewood, WA 98372-1417
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033006
From: William Masterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Masterson
1166 Holmesdale Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 29958]]
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 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,
W.A. Masterson
MTC-00033007
From: Debe Loeber
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Debe Loeber
503 12th Ave. Ct.
Milton, WA 98354-9500
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033008
From: Timothy Coy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Coy
315 E. Huntingdon St.
Savannah, GA 31401
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Timothy E. Coy
MTC-00033009
From: Virginia Arnold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to
[[Page 29959]]
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,
Virginia Arnold
9905 Marine View Dr.
Mukilteo, WA 98275-4113
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033010
From: Malcolm Russell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
Accept the settlement and work to get Microsoft focused on it's
business again. I support the recent settlement of the long-running
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation.
Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided
to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, I am
thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and
the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this
baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from. Microsoft's actions did not
harm consumers, but provided them with great benefits by lowering
the cost and increasing the availability of software products.
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,
Malcolm Russell
4414 South 9th Street
Tacoma, WA 98405-1210
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033011
From: Stephen Ryczek
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Stephen Ryczek
105 Eagle Ridge Dr. E.
Puyallup, WA 98374-9217
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033012
From: JOHN CARNAGHI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CARNAGHI
7 LAKE SHORE LANE
GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2464
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John A. Carnaghi
MTC-00033013
From: Franklin Mayse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,
[[Page 29960]]
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,
Franklin Mayse
11308 194th st. E.
Graham, WA 98338-8169
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033014
From: Jeanette Whitley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeanette Whitley
1993 6th Ave., S.E.
Vero Beach, Fl 32962-7311
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William P. Whitley
MTC-00033015
From: Thomas Simmons
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Thomas Simmons
5423 W. Tapps Dr. E
Sumner, WA 98390-8912
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033016
From: John Malivuk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Malivuk
1182 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Akron, OH 44310-2231
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29961]]
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,
John Malivuk
MTC-00033017
From: P. Hill
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P. Hill
2342a 30th Av
Osceola, wi 54020-5927
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
P. Hill
MTC-00033018
From: C. Kenneth Yetter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Kenneth Yetter
314 Hillside Drive
Shillington, Pa 19607
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
C. Kenneth Yetter
MTC-00033019
From: Frank Moretti
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Moretti
4 Giles Hill Road
Redding, Ct 06896
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 29962]]
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 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,
Frank Moreti
MTC-00033020
From: Billy Kidd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billy Kidd
157 Sanders Drive
Minden, LA 71055-7503
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Billy H. Kidd
MTC-00033021
From: William O'Byrne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William O'Byrne
3631 Vienna Drive
College Station, TX 77845
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William F. O'Byrne
[[Page 29963]]
MTC-00033022
From: Donald High
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald High
1007 Edgeworth Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122-2434
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald A. High
MTC-00033023
From: Katherine High
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Katherine High
1007 Edgeworth Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122-2434
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Katherine L. High
MTC-00033024
From: Larry Fruth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Fruth
101 Summerfield Blvd.
Bowling Green, OH 43402
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29964]]
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
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,
Larry Fruth
MTC-00033025
From: George B. Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George B. Clark
6800 Winged Foot Drive
Stuart, FL 34997-8619
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
George B. Clark
MTC-00033026
From: Sterling Haskell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sterling Haskell
2239 Watrous Drive
Dunedin, FL 34698
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Sterling E. Haskell
MTC-00033027
From: Harold Mcgraw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Mcgraw
9 Sidney Drive
Independence, Ky 41051
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 29965]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Harold E, Mcgraw
MTC-00033028
From: David W. Bosscher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David W. Bosscher
2911 Chamberlain SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
David W. Bosscher
MTC-00033029
From: Russell Coventry
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Coventry
P. O. Box 104
Ellison Bay, WI 54210
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29966]]
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,
Russell A. Coventry
MTC-00033030
From: Bernd Koken
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernd Koken
916 MacEwen Drive
Osprey, FL 34229
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bernd Koken
MTC-00033031
From: john duncan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
john duncan
8905 65th St W
University Place, WA 98467-1652
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033032
From: Joni Masterson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Joni Masterson
2756 SW 327th St.
Federal Way, WA 98023-2536
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033033
From: BOBBY JONES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
BOBBY JONES
310 DELAWARE SPRINGS BLVD.
BUTNET, TX 78611-3516
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29967]]
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 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,
Colonel Bobby A. Jones, USAF (RET)
MTC-00033034
From: WILLIAM NESBITT
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WILLIAM NESBITT
4135 CREEKWOOD LN.
MULBERRY, FL 33860
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,please get rid of all the lawyers
WILLIAM NESBITT
MTC-00033035
From: ROBERT JACKSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT JACKSON
165 A HAGUE BLVD
GLENMONT, NY 12077-3617
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance ? the war
against terrorism, including homelandsecurity. As noted by District
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September 11, it is vital forthe country to move on
from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremelyhard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effectimmediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals fromcontinuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own. Competitorsalso benefit from the
provision that frees up computer manufacturers todisable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operatingsystem
and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannotretaliate
against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for
using products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the
company'sexpense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance
with thesettlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid
[[Page 29968]]
the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment
portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more
than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this settlement
can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, and I urge
the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S.
District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Jackson
MTC-00033036
From: James Whatley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Whatley
350 Center Point River Road
Kerrville, TX 78028-8004
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
James Whatley
MTC-00033037
From: Harold A Brenner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold A Brenner
96 Hibiscus Dr.
Punta Gorda, Fl 33950
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance ? the war
against terrorism, including homelandsecurity. As noted by District
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September 11, it is vital forthe country to move on
from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremelyhard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effectimmediately rather
than months or years from now when all appeals fromcontinuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own. Competitorsalso benefit from the
provision that frees up computer manufacturers todisable or
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operatingsystem
and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannotretaliate
against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for
using products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout
of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the
company'sexpense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance
with thesettlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors?products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
H. A. Brenner
MTC-00033039
From: Richard Chappell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Chappell
262 Cambridge Road
Camden, DE 19934-1204
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers
[[Page 29969]]
andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to
continueto innovate and provide new software and products. Software
developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Chappell
MTC-00033040
From: Samuel Hall Jr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samuel Hall Jr
1418Pleasant Valley Dr
Baltimore, MD 21228-2541
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Samuel D Hall Jr
MTC-00033041
From: W. E. Connell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. E. Connell
6201 Simmons Dr.
Anniston,, AL 36206-1174
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals 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 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,
W. E. Connell, Jr
MTC-00033042
From: David Lopez
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:46pm
[[Page 29970]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lopez
P.O. Box 17412
Tampa, Fl 33682-7412
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
David Lopez
MTC-00033043
From: Paul Aloia
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Aloia
826 Lansing Switch
Longview, TX 75602
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Paul Aloia
MTC-00033044
From: Philip Robinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Robinson
7113 Sheffield Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37909
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29971]]
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Philip A. Robinson
MTC-00033045
From: Delbert Cummngs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Delbert Cummngs
4870 Big Pine Dr.
Lakeside, Az 85929-5511
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Delbert E. Cummngs
MTC-00033046
From: WALT MORENO
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WALT MORENO
933 MENDOCINO AVENUE
SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Walt Moreno
MTC-00033047
From: MARY V. MORIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARY V. MORIN
256 HILLSIDE AVENUE
CHATHAM, NJ 07928
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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
[[Page 29972]]
public interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people,
the Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary V. Morin
MTC-00033048
From: William H. Schauer Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William H. Schauer Jr.
970 Gershwin Dr.
Largo, FL 33771-1314
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William H. Schauer Jr.
MTC-00033049
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a senior citizen and a member of the voting public I deplore
the intrusion of state governments into a rational Justice
Department settlement of the Microsoft litigation.
Surely they've been aggressive---isn't that the nature of
compettiveness in the business world? I feel that the states are not
so much seeking redress for their constituents but rather are
hopeful of a financial windfall. Enough, if you please!!!
R.J.Corbliss
Barnegat, NJ
MTC-00033050
From: Eileen Bolton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eileen Bolton
3351 Lee Street
Hollywood, FL 33021
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29973]]
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Eileen Bolton
MTC-00033051
From: Leo Caissie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leo Caissie
524 Main Street
Hudson, MA 01749-2909
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Leo A.Caissie
MTC-00033052
From: Robert Curley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Curley
534 candlewood Lane
Flat Rock, NC 28731-9638
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert Curley
MTC-00033053
From: Herman Riley Stein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Riley Stein
154 Seminole Blvd
Tavernier, FL 33070-2148
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I do not need someone to write messages for me any more than I
need the lawyers living off the DOJ to decide what is good for
[[Page 29974]]
me. I liked the telephone service that worked! So it cost a bit more
but the phones could fall from the second story and still work. Now
we have junk phones from China and God knows where which need
replacing each year. Thank you DOJ! The ``hodgepog''
called service must also be from China. Now the student lawyers want
to kill the organization that made the computer operation possible
for almost any age group. AND YOU USE MY MONEY TO MAKE MY LIFE MORE
DIFFICULT. I wonder just what is taught in law school these days. It
sure isn't to defend the ordinary people. I would like to express my
support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v.
Microsoft case. when all appeals from continuing the litigation
would finally be exhausted.
Sincerely and Thank you
Herman Riley Stein
MTC-00033054
From: Robert Woody
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Woody
8325 Harvard Ave
Raytown, Mo 64138-3645
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert Woody
MTC-00033055
From: duane carlson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
duane carlson
206 riverside rd.
marquette, mi 49855
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
duane r carlson
MTC-00033056
From: William Laudel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Laudel
661 Kirkshire
St. Louis, Mo 63122
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29975]]
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 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,
William H. Laudel
MTC-00033057
From: Leland Evjen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leland Evjen
1517 1st ave eastt
Williston, ND 58801
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Leland Evjen
MTC-00033058
From: Jared Nuzzolillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to you with the hope that one honest voice may be
heard above the shouting and screaming of special interest groups
across the nation. I'd like to start by stating that I have no
financial interest in Microsoft whatsoever, nor do I belong to any
organization that has said interests. I am coming to you,
specifically, as a freedom-loving American consumer.
Microsoft has, time and again, created the cheapest and most
efficacious software available in its industry. I use Windows daily,
and have found it both easier and faster than alternative products I
have used (and there are many). Microsoft's software is, in a single
word, superior. Microsoft is currently being penalized by a lawsuit
raised, not by the consumers, but by those who failed to compete
with them fairly, and seek special help from ``Uncle Sam''
to force their own software into the market. I don't want their slow
and unreliable software, and as an intelligent, (mostly) free human
being, resent the fact that you are attempting to remove yet another
choice from me.
Success and innovation should be rewarded in our nation, not
penalized. Bill Gates is an icon of the American dream, and to
steal/destroy/control his property is an affront to civilized
society as a whole. It is your job to protect his, and the other
Microsoft shareholders, rights, not to ingringe upon them. Please,
take this opportunity to show the citizenry that the government of
our proud nation will protect the rights of its people, and not give
in to lobbyists and talking-heads. Please, preserve our freedom.
Sincerely,
Jared Nuzzolillo
MTC-00033059
From: Leona Morgan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leona Morgan
3 Old Chester Road
East Derry, NH 03041-0087
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29976]]
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 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,
Leona N Morgan
MTC-00033060
From: Mildred Van Keuren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mildred Van Keuren
414 Shropshire St
San Antonio, TX 78217-6033
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mildred Van Keuren
MTC-00033061
From: Margaret M. Rivers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret M. Rivers
3507 Springfield Ct.
Valparaiso, IN 46383-1948
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29977]]
submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District
Court without change.
Sincerely,
Margaret M. Rivers
MTC-00033062
From: Edward Jayjack
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Jayjack
2120 W. Pleasant Valley Rd.
Parma, Oh 44134
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Edward Jayjack
MTC-00033063
From: Jim Nussle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Nussle
1101 Division St.
Cresco, IA 52136-1017
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Raymond W. Morrison
MTC-00033064
From: David Ott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Ott
1126 Nathaniel Ct
Hazelwood, MO 63042-3812
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29978]]
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 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,
David E. Ott
MTC-00033065
From: Philip Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Miller
4011 Rolling Green Dr.
Memphis, TN 38125
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Philip Miller
MTC-00033066
From: Erik Hanson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Erik Hanson
1602 Naval Ave. #38
Bremerton, WA 98312-3081
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033067
From: Alice Burich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Burich
343 Whitclem Drive
Palo Allto, CA 94306-4115
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29979]]
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
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,
Alice B. Burich
MTC-00033068
From: James Hand
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Hand
368 Lower LaVista Ct. NW
Salem, OR 97304
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James A. Hand
MTC-00033069
From: Jack McCorkle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack McCorkle
1240 Bridlewood Way
Reno, NV 89509-7116
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 601 D Street NW,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jack E. McCorkle, Reno, Nevada
MTC-00033070
From: Helen Allport
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Allport
346 Fremont Road
Nottingham, PA 19362
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
As a taxpayer and consumer, I SUPPORT the Microsoft settlement.
[[Page 29980]]
Sincerely,
Helen P. Allport
MTC-00033071
From: Robert Merkle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Merkle
153 Wildflower Lane
Waynesville, NC 28786
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert B. Merkle
MTC-00033072
From: Brenda A. Moran
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brenda A. Moran
P O Box 2160
Hobbs, NM 88241-2160
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Brenda A. Moran
MTC-00033073
From: Rudy p Petorelli
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rudy p Petorelli
519-1 Joseph Ct
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 29981]]
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 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,
Rudy Petorelli
MTC-00033074
From: Hal Neiman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hal Neiman
2212 California Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Hal Neiman
MTC-00033075
From: Paul Walker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Walker
3137 Whisper Blvd.
Deland, FL 32724-8247
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Paul C. Walker
MTC-00033076
From: Phil Corwin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Corwin
1717 Voorhees Ave.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-7045
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
[[Page 29982]]
Please see the comments at the end (from a friend of mine who I
agree with in this instance) that are in addition to the next text.
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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. BELOW IS THE
ADDITIONAL TEXT.
If the premise of the final sentence is true, then this seems
like a reasonable question:
Two men, both billionaires. One develops relatively cheap
software and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. The
other sponsors terrorism and is probably responsible for the deaths
of thousands. That being the case, why is it that the US government
has spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years
than Osama bin Laden?
Sincerely,
Phil Corwin
MTC-00033077
From: joseph kudzol
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
joseph kudzol
112 dolphin drive
fayetteville, ga 30214
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
joe kudzol
MTC-00033078
From: George Mason
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Mason
19053 North 88th Ave.
Peoria, AZ 85382-8541
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29983]]
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 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,
George F. Mason
MTC-00033079
From: George Vogrin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Vogrin
933 73rd Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
George R. Vogrin
MTC-00033080
From: GEORGE HANSEN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GEORGE HANSEN
513 VAUTIER RD.
SEQUIM, WA 98382
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
GEORGE HANSEN
MTC-00033081
From: Mary Johnston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Johnston
6530 SW Parkhill Drive
Portland, OR 97201
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 29984]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary E, KIncaid Johnston
MTC-00033082
From: Robert Lipp
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lipp
23265 Woodhaven Ct
Farmington Hills, MI 48335-3124
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I am a taxpayer and a consumer of several Microsoft products. I
would like to express my support for the revised proposed Final
Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert E. Lipp
MTC-00033083
From: Maurice Angvall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maurice Angvall
1049 Marchetti Ct.
Chico, CA 95926
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29985]]
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,
Maurice W. Angvall
MTC-00033084
From: Harry Stewart
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Stewart
5018 Colorado Rd.
Midpines, Ca 95345-9707
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Harry O. Stewart
MTC-00033085
From: George Greaney
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Greaney
1603--E. Hedgecroft
Seabrook, TX 77586
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, George J. Greaney
MTC-00033086
From: Perry Lewis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Lewis
175 18th SW
Huron, SD 57350
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29986]]
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 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,
Perry Lewis
MTC-00033087
From: Vernon White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vernon White
6245 3rd Ave. North
St. Petersburg, FL 33710-7822
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Vernon H. White
MTC-00033088
From: Bruce Lewis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Lewis
3119 Knollwood Ct
Sioux City, IA 51106
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29987]]
submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District
Court without change.
Sincerely,
Bruce Lewis
MTC-00033089
From: Andrew Pickens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Pickens
222 Halbart Drive
San Antonio, TX 78213
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Pickens
MTC-00033090
From: Ruth Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ruth Howard
1405 PLantation Dr.
Lady Lake, Fl 32159-2246
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ruth C. Howard
MTC-00033091
From: Joseph Vrzalik
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Vrzalik
3890 Schroeder Avenue
Perry Hall, MD 21128
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29988]]
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
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,
Joeph F. Vrzalik
MTC-00033092
From: Rodger Landes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rodger Landes
1238 Creek Road
Lititz, PA 17543
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Rodger B. Landes
MTC-00033093
From: Pam Barton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pam Barton
404 Jasmine Way
Clearwater, FL 33756
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Pam Barton
MTC-00033094
From: Ray Barton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Barton
[[Page 29989]]
404 Jasmine Way
Clearwater, FL 33756
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ray Barton
MTC-00033095
From: Allison Moore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allison Moore
10636 S. Niagara
Littleton, CO 80124
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Allison Moore
MTC-00033096
From: Bill Reddie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Reddie
661 E. Intrepid St P.O.Box 1314
Pahrump, NV 89041
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 29990]]
an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Bill Reddie
MTC-00033097
From: John Lunkes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
John Lunkes
8210 49th St. Ct., West
University Place, WA 98467-1969
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033098
From: ALLAN HANSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ALLAN HANSON
6020 LITTLE SPRING ROAD
SOMERSET, CA 95684-9219
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
ALLAN G. HANSON
MTC-00033099
From: Howard Milke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Milke
35 Ocean Meadows N. PO Box 2348
Ogunquit, ME 03907-2348
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for
[[Page 29991]]
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,
Howard Milke
MTC-00033100
From: lillian lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
lillian lee
22120 center st 502
castro valley, ca 94546
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
lillian lee
MTC-00033101
From: Dorothy Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Howard
2285 Norwegian Drive, Apt. 59
Clearwater, FL 33763
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
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,
Dorothy H. Howard
MTC-00033102
From: Renata B. Hesse
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
5532 Country Club Way
Sarasota, Fl 34243-3757
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29992]]
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,
Frederick C. Faulkner
MTC-00033103
From: Richard Haugen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Haugen
740 Southgate
Fullerton, Ca 92832
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard Haugen
MTC-00033104
From: Catherine Reimer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Catherine Reimer
14 Truman Road
Charleroi, PA 15022
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Taxpayer & Consumer
Catherine M. Reimer
MTC-00033105
From: Howard Garrett
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Garrett
2107 Sylvan Lane
Midland, MI 48640
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 29993]]
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 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,
Howard L. Garrett
MTC-00033106
From: Alvin Barber, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alvin Barber, Jr.
1885 Aloha Street
Red Bluff, CA 96980-4009
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
Rejoicing in Christ,
Alvin B. Barber, Jr.
MTC-00033107
From: Dennis Fischer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Fischer
9728 Regalton Court
St. Louis, MO 63123-5318
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dennis R. Fischer
MTC-00033108
From: Mary Stock
[[Page 29994]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Stock
670 Island Way #607
Clearwater, FL 33767
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary Stock
MTC-00033109
From: June Hillyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
June Hillyer
50 Churhill Drive
Bella Vista, AR 72714-6232
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
June Hillyer
MTC-00033110
From: Mike Silva
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02 7:16pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
Dear Sir;
I believe you are making a serious error in judgement in going
after Microsoft in this manner. I believe their competition is
trying to break Microsoft. Giving codes and strip down versions of
windows and other programs will weaken the abilities of Microsoft to
create new programming, and this will hurt the consumer. Microsoft
developed windows and should be able to keep the codes that they
created. It seems to me that you would be stripping the company of a
product they basically created,and continue to develope. I do
believe that there should be a choice of browsers and programs
independent of using Microsoft software. Linux seems to be one and
I'm sure there could be others. The problem is that windows is owned
and operated by Microsoft and was their invention to start with and
to give away secret codes would put not only Microsoft at risk of
piracy(sp) but every other company in the world at risk. Why
develope a product and share all the workings only to have it stolen
by a rival under the guise of unfair business.
Sincerely,
Mike Silva
1717 Pepper Villa Drive
El Cajon , CA 92021-1215
MTC-00033111
From: Charles Patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Patterson
P O Box 9069
Gosnell, AR 72319
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 29995]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charles Patterson
MTC-00033112
From: Joe Boehnlein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Boehnlein
5389 Circle Drive
Belmont, Mi 49306-9002
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Joe Boehnlein
MTC-00033113
From: John I. McLain
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John I. McLain
16874 131st Way N
Jupiter,, FL 33478
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 29996]]
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,
John I. McLain
MTC-00033114
From: Luther Klick
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Luther Klick
315 E. Chestnut St.
Cleona, Pa 17042
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Luther Klick
MTC-00033115
From: James Frisbie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Frisbie
636 Holly Road
Cadillac, MI 49601
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James R. Frisbie
MTC-00033116
From: Howard Sampson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Sampson
4063 RR 4
Cortland, OH 44410
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 29997]]
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 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,
Howard Sampson
MTC-00033117
From: Aloma Blaylock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
Microsoft has given us programs and operating system that is
easy to access and use. No one has forced me to use their operating
system. Competitors who have fallen behind in innovation should stop
complaining and get to work. Are you going to make General Mills
package a little Special K with their Cheerios of they get a high
percentage of the cereal market?
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,
Aloma Blaylock
1013 West 13th
Port Angeles, WA 98363-7220
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033118
From: Chris Norbury
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Norbury
2175 Sunflower Lane
Owatonna, MN 55060-2083
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Chris Norbury
MTC-00033119
From: Becki Shaffer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Becki Shaffer
939 Deerfield Rd.
Deerfield, IL 60015
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and
[[Page 29998]]
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 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,
Becki A. Shaffer
MTC-00033120
From: D Carlton Cobb
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
D Carlton Cobb
3892 Three Doves Cove
Memphis, TN 38133-2106
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
D. Carlton Cobb
MTC-00033121
From: Carolyn Lovern
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Carolyn Lovern
25122 Florence Acres Rd.
Monroe, WA 98272-9661
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033122
From: Ronald Newton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Newton
307 Rainbow Ct
Paso Robles, CA 93446-2986
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greater national
[[Page 29999]]
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 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,
Ronald C Newton
MTC-00033123
From: Bill Zeitlin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Zeitlin
281 Swan Court
Manhasset, NY 11030
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals 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 andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Bill Zeitlin
MTC-00033126
From: fred bialek
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
fred bialek
200 winding way
woodside, ca 94062
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid
[[Page 30000]]
the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment
portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more
than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this settlement
can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, and I urge
the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S.
District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Fred B. Bialek
MTC-00033127
From: jdfrost
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/22/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joan Frost
838 N 161st Place
Shoreline, WA 98133
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The recent antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US
Departmentof Justice has been a long time coming. I feel that the
lawsuit was unjustified inthe first place. Microsoft has done
wonderful things for our nation. It has createdjobs, made
technological breakthroughs, and contributed to our
educationsystems. The Windows operating system for all practical
purposes is thestandard for the industry without which we would not
have most of our applicationsoftware if there were no
``standard'' in place. In part, the state of our
depressedeconomy was brought about by this suit that has it has had
a negative impactupon the PC industry.
Yet, the government wants to bring it down. It seems that if
onesucceeds then that entity must automatically be evil. The terms
of the settlementreflect the intense lobbying efforts of Microsoft's
competitors. For one, all theconcessions are geared towards helping
the competitors gain an edge that theywould not have achieved on
their own. Microsoft is giving them technologicalinformation such as
interfaces and protocols. Microsoft is also agreeing not toretaliate
against computer makers and software developers who promote non-
Microsoft products.
Although flawed, the settlement should be realized because the
alternativeof further litigation would be too much for our country
to bear. We need Microsoftto be creating new products for the
public's best interests. Why do we so mistrustthe judgment of the
public who has voted with their pocket book by purchasingMicrosoft
products?
Sincerely,
Joan Frost
MTC-00033128
From: George Hallock
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Hallock
4034 Selkirk Court
Cypress, CA 90630
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
George Hallock
MTC-00033129
From: Alfred Lehman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfred Lehman
1364 Richland Blvd.
Bay Shore, NY 11706-5444
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
Joining many other Americans, I would like to express my support
for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft
case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me
more than $35 million. I have studied the terms of this ruling, and
I strongly feel that this final approval is clearly in the public
interest.
Our greatest boon in this settlement: the Department of Justice
and the settling states will AVOID ADDITIONAL COSTS and now be able
to focus their time and resources on matters of greater importance:
the war against terrorism, and homeland security. As noted by Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
September 11 tragedy,``it's vital for the country to move on
from this lawsuit.'' I can readily see that the terms of the
settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides -: the DOJ, the
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft
need not be broken up and can continue to innovate and provide new
software and products. Software developers and Internet Service
Providers, including competitors, will now have access to
Microsoft's programming language and thus be able to make Microsoft
programs compatible with their own. It's good to know that
competitors also gain as computer manufacturers are free to
uninstall any Microsoft application or operating system and install
other programs. And...Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other software makers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. ALSO: a Technical Committee will
work out of Microsoft's headquarters for five years, at the
company's expense, to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the
settlement. That, too, is acceptable.
This settlement is fair to the computer users of America.
Consumers will be able to select from a variety of pre-installed
software on their computers, even find it easier to substitute
competitor products after purchase.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers, and we certainly ``paid our way''--the
cost of litigation--through our taxes. Even our investment
portfolios have taken a 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,
Alfred C. Lehman, MS, MSC
[[Page 30001]]
MTC-00033130
From: RICHARD NAPLES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD NAPLES
199 INAGUA ST
DANIA BEACH, FL 33004
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
RICHARD D NAPLES
MTC-00033131
From: Thomas Mignini
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Mignini
638 Rocky Hill Rd
Sparks, MD 21152
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas Mignini
MTC-00033132
From: Edwin Fisch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin Fisch
6113 Bellingham Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94552-1631
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30002]]
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 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,
Edwin J. Fisch
MTC-00033133
From: Sharon Riddle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Sharon Riddle
4921 102nd Ln NE
Kirkland, WA 98033-7641
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033134
From: Thomas Crosswhite
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Crosswhite
127 Lidster Avenue
Grass Valley, CA 95945
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas Crosswhite
MTC-00033135
From: Toni Curtis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Toni Curtis
6960 Deer Bluff Dr
Dayton, OH 45424
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30003]]
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,
Toni J Curtis
MTC-00033136
From: Larry Scott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Larry Scott
11211 S.E. 223 pl
Kent, WA 98031-2634
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033137
From: James Babcock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
James Babcock
3410 NE 54th Street
Vancouver, WA 98661-2025
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033138
From: Theodore W. Guest
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore W. Guest
4366 Carlo Drive
Dayton, OH 45429-4710
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Theodore W. Guest
MTC-00033139
From: WILLIAM SENATORE
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WILLIAM SENATORE
22718 AUTUMN
NOVI, MI 48374
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30004]]
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 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,
WILLIAM F. SENATORE
MTC-00033140
From: Frank Muccianti
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Muccianti
338 N. Morris Dr.
Palatine, Il 60074
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Frank Muccianti
MTC-00033141
From: thom
Date: 1/23/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, nor will restore any
competitive nature to the high tech market place. Hundred, even
thousands, of small companies have ceased to exist over the decades
because of Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices, and I
fear because of this settlement, in the future Microsoft will put
the U.S. economy at risk, AND cause a significant problem with our
national security.
Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly,
Microsoft's behavior remains un-changed, if not even more anti-
competitive. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe
criminal penalties for failure to comply, with an immediate large
fine ($5+ billion) is the only remedy that I can see will curtail
them. The market must be able to return to a state of competition.
In every sense, the USDOJ has failed by signing the proposed
settlement.
Thank you,
Thomas H. Dieterich
Lynnwood WA 98037
MTC-00033142
From: Pat Starkey
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 5:24am
Subject: Microsoft
Dear Sir:
As a registered Republican I am requesting that the suit against
Microsoft concerning the antitrust settlement between the Department
of Justice but settled as soon as possible.
Microsoft company is giving the public what it wants. Remember
when the government broke up the telephone companies and the
consumer lost. Our prices rose and the service is much worse.
Please settle this antitrust settlement as soon as possible and
give the public what it wants.
Patricia F. Starkey
2417 Aubin Lane, Baton Rouge, La. 70816 225-275-6200
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033143
From: Karl L. Zengel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karl L. Zengel
2301 Linwald Lane
Dayton, OH 45459
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and
the settling states will avoid
[[Page 30005]]
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 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,
Karl L. Zengel
MTC-00033144
From: Gary Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Clark
6507 Cathedral Oaks Drive
Plant City, Fl 33565-6123
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Gary B. Clark
MTC-00033145
From: Donald Werle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Werle
238 Gridley Ave
Erie, PA 16508
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30006]]
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,
Don Werle of Erie Pa
MTC-00033146
From: Wesley Daugherty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wesley Daugherty
340 Valley Lane P.O.Box 826
Lebanon, Ky 40033
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Wesley O. Daugherty
MTC-00033147
From: Chris Worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sir/Ma'am,
I find the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement to be just
short of an apology to Microsoft.
It will do nothing to stop their anticompetitive behavior. It
will do nothing to spur competition in the software industry. It
gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue to run roughshod over
consumers and competition.
The media has well documented that every key provision in this
settlement has an ``opt out'' loophole that allows
Microsoft to continue it's anticompetitive behaviors. The future of
high technology is at stake. If you allow Microsoft to remain
unchecked, then we are entering a new ``dark ages'' where
a small minority will control the information vital to innovation.
The part of the proposal I'm most concerned with is the
``security'' ``opt out'' in the ``open
protocols'' section...
``Security'' has become a buzzword associated with
terrorist acts, allowing Microsoft to portray competing vendor's
software compatibility with authentication software as an act of
treason. It's just not so. ``Security through obscurity''
has never stopped hackers with ill intent, it only keeps those being
attacked ``in the dark''. It's much like human viri: we
want to know what can infect us, how to keep from getting infected,
how to detect the infection, and how to stop the infection (even if
it can't be stopped). This information is key to our longevity. For
example, the recent anthrax terrorist acts have shown that public
information is critical to detection and cure, and the lack of
information led to unnecessary infection (of postal workers) and
panic among the uninfected, and did nothing to stop the perpetrator.
Software viri/worms require the same publicity to protect and
inform the population.
I'm afraid Microsoft has negotiated this loophole in the
settlement for a reason other than protecting consumers: they're
stopping compatible products from competing under the guise of
stopping terrorism. For example, a software package called
``Samba'' competes with Microsoft NT file servers: file
servers compatible with the protocols that provide you with your
``network neighborhood''. If Microsoft can hide the
authentication protocol, then the competing file server software
can't compete: if you have to have an NT server to authenticate
users, then you might as well use that server to serve files and not
use Samba at all (IT departments, in order to simplify their task,
would prefer not to run servers with different OSes). For Samba to
compete, it must be able to perform all the necessary protocols for
Microsoft's network file services. It's all or nothing; it does
consumers and competition no good for only part of the protocol to
be published. This is similar to their behavior with API's. By not
exposing key OS interfaces, they've been able to create special
``hooks'' into the OS that only their applications can
use, allowing their applications to have features that the
competition can't have. It's the same old trick with a new twist,
under the guise of ``protecting consumers''. This
settlement is a ruse. It's a trap. And, the DOJ seems overly willing
to fall for it, to the detriment of competition and consumers.
Chris Worley
Salt Lake City, Utah
MTC-00033148
From: Agnes Bode
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Agnes Bode
3124 Longfield Road
Glenwood, MD 21738-9644
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30007]]
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 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,
Agnes Bode
MTC-00033149
From: Jane Magliacane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Magliacane
133 Holly Drive
Gardner, MA 01440
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jane Magliacane
MTC-00033150
From: Frank Ziegler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Ziegler
4035 NE 22nd Ave.
Ocala, Fl 34479-2556
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
Frank I would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Frank Ziegler
MTC-00033151
From: Stephen Storm
[[Page 30008]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Storm
P.O. Box 550
Eastland, TX 76448
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Stephen Storm
MTC-00033152
From: Mary Pardo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Pardo
76 Plymouth St.
Montclair, NJ 07042
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary A. Pardo
MTC-00033153
From: T. C. Hiestand
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
T. C. Hiestand
1361 Duffers Lane
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30009]]
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 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,
Mr. and Mrs. T. C. Hiestand
MTC-00033154
From: Joyce L Gorham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Joyce L Gorham
2716 s.e. 31st street
Okeechobee, FL 34974-6747
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033155
From: Charles A White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles A White
13012 S Oak Park Ave
Palos Heights, Il 60463-2227
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charles A White
MTC-00033156
From: Richard Atwater
To: US DOJ
Date: 1/23/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
As a software professional, and US citizen, I am deeply
disturbed by the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust
case. As I understand it, it imposes no penalties for Microsoft's
illegal past actions, and does nothing to preclude such acts in the
future. The settlement should not be accepted as proposed.
Thank you,
Richard M. Atwater, Software Engineer
Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc.
Indianapolis, IN 46250
MTC-00033157
From: Bert Green
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bert Green
1060 S. U.S. Hwy. 1 Lot 80
Vero Beach, FL 32962-5678
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30010]]
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 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,
Bert Green
MTC-00033158
From: Joseph Abell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Abell
4505 South Yosemite, #146
Denver, CO 80237
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
J. M. Abell
MTC-00033159
From: Richard Nakashian
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Nakashian
23 Mariners Ln.
Pocasset, Ma 02559-3150
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Marita Nakashian
MTC-00033160
From: Henry & Virginia Harger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 30011]]
Date: 1/23/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry & Virginia Harger
352 Fernberg Road
Ely, MN 55731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Henry & Virginia Harger
MTC-00033162
From: Rocky Oliver
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rocky Oliver
3402 Socrates Dr.
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Rocky Oliver
MTC-00033163
From: RICHARD AND JOYCE RENTEL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD AND JOYCE RENTEL
8508 MAIN ST #B103
EDMONDS, WA 98026
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30012]]
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
RICHARD RENTEL
MTC-00033164
From: Phil Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Martin
5583 Old U.S. 41
Lake Park, GA 31636-3490
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Phil Martin, M.D.
MTC-00033165
From: C. W. Berghorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. W. Berghorn
11 Chestnut Lane
Pinehurst, NC 28374
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
C. W. Berghorn
MTC-00033166
From: James Krug
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
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. This suit should
never have been brought in the firwt place.
It is an egregious use of government power to benefit
Microsoft's competetors. However, I thank you for your decision to
settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative
company.
Respectfully,
[[Page 30013]]
James Krug
6125 Troon Ln., S.E.
Olympia, WA 98501-5174
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033167
From: Donald McLarty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald McLarty
1511 Vassar
Houston, TX 77006
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Don McLarty
MTC-00033168
From: Melodie Avis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Melodie Avis 15534 Mira Monte Drive
Houston, TX 77083-4042
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033169
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Zengel
6362 Karlsridge Dr
Dayton, oh 45459
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
James M. Zengel
MTC-00033170
From: Louis Prince
[[Page 30014]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Louis Prince
Avenida Melisenda
San Dimas, CA 91773
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Louis D. Prince
MTC-00033171
From: C. Frederick Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Frederick Miller
512 Ridgeway Drive
Bellingham, WA 98225
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
C. Frederick Miller
MTC-00033172
From: Duane W. Crimin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Duane W. Crimin
1045 Peach Drive
Ogden, UT 84404-6528
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30015]]
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Duane W. Crimin
MTC-00033173
From: William Rohrbaugh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Rohrbaugh
912 Sherwood St
Hanover, PA 17331
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
W.Max Rohrbaugh
MTC-00033174
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:02am Message-ID:
<012101c1a438$05d3b950$1b0210ac@bkolev1>
From: ``Bobby Kolev''
To:
Subject: Split was the right thing to do
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:01:45 -0600
I develop for various platforms, including Palm and PocketPC. I
see Microsoft as the best tech company around, it is in fact so well
= postioned that it had already crossed the line of being useful and
is = dangerous.
As much as I like and admire their business genius, I believe it
wasn't = a settlement that needed to be done, but a split. I even
believe that = would have been for their own (in addition to
everyone else's) interest = in longer run.
Regards,
Bobby Kolev
www.beiks.com
MTC-00033175
From: alma teuscher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
alma teuscher
933 west main st.
newark, oh 43055
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30016]]
the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
alma teuscher
MTC-00033176
From: Clarence Van Alstyne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clarence Van Alstyne
680 Forest Ave.
Fulton, NY 13069-3304
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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. Believe it or
not, I do not have a nickle of MS stock but like a lot of people
over the last nine years I become very wary when federal pressure
through the DOJ or many other federal organizations appears to be
used to extract huge sums of money for the benefit only of our
politicians.
Sincerely,
Clarence Van Alstyne
MTC-00033177
From: Margaret Meyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Meyer
11846 Schulze Lane
Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670-8816
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I am signing my name to a letter composed by someone else, but
it expresses my thoughts better than I would have been able to, so I
thank you in advance for considering my stand on the Microsoft case
even though you will have read these words before. I would like to
express my support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the
U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Margaret L. Meyer
MTC-00033178
From: Brian Pollard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Pollard
PO Box 268
Mount Desert, ME 04660
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30017]]
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 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. As a lifetime
executive in the computer industry I KNOW that Microsoft are in a
lead position because of the skills and competence.
Their opponents -- Apple, Sun, etc. are trailing because of
their incompetence and their attempts, unlike Microsoft, to
monopolize the industry. Apple sought to sell both hardware and
software, and wouldn't allow anyone else to participate, result !%
of the market. Sun attempts the same and is losing market share. Go
into any store and see the myriuar of computes and software with
names other than Microsoft--all there BECAUSE of Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Brian W. Pollard
MTC-00033179
From: Sonnia Bean
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Sonnia Bean
13619 Sandy Point E. KPN
Gig Harbor, WA 98329-5684
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033180
From: Carol Stankovsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Stankovsky
1917 Empire Drive
Waukesha, WI 53186
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carol Stankovsky
MTC-00033181
From: Kathy Clancy
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement --CC: On letter to the Americans
for Technology Leadership
January 23, 2002
To Americans for Technology Leadership:
I find it absurd that you request a letter from our chamber of
commerce for the expidited settlement of the Microsoft case when
your mission states that you are ``dedicated to limiting
government regulation of technology and fostering competitive market
solutions to public policy issues affecting the technology
industry.'' Our business have many diverse opinions, and I
would bet they would not side with your slanted view.
Microsoft is like big brother and seeks to squelch all and any
competition. Tell me, how this is going to ``foster competitive
markets''? They have a history of squeezing competitors while
it makes memory and size
[[Page 30018]]
gobbling, inefficient programs. Consumers can demand higher quality,
but Microsoft will dish out what it wants--there's no one else
to get the milk from! As a degreed Systems Analyst and experience as
a beta tester for Microsoft, I tell you that it's worth the money to
pressure them. When the government gives in, who else will be able
to move the giant? Don't be stupid and influenced by the money.
There are principles involved and the future of truly fostering
technological innovation is at risk.
This is the note I'll send to the Ms. Hesse.
Respectfully,
Kathryn Clancy
Executive Director
Painesville Area Chamber of Commerce
www.painesvilleohchamber.org
440-357-7572
MTC-00033182
From: earl jones
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
earl jones
105 southwestern pl.
sequim, , wa 98382
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
earl l. jones
MTC-00033183
From: Mary E. Vaughn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary E. Vaughn
1589 Riverside Dr. Apt A
South Bend, In 46616-1608
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ms. Mary E. Vaughn
MTC-00033184
From: William Simpson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Simpson
4856 Glenn Abbey way
Banning, CA 92220
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30019]]
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 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,
William T. Simpson
MTC-00033186
From: Dorman W. Arnold
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorman W. Arnold
39 The Orchard
Fayetteville, NY 13066-2254
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dorman W. Arnold
MTC-00033187
From: Joseph B. Taphorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph B. Taphorn
8 Scenic Drive
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603-5521
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30020]]
the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
joseph B. Taphorn
MTC-00033188
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:59:57 -0800
From: Jeff Evarts
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to comment on the potential resolutions to the
Microsoft situation.
I am familiar with the marketing practices of Microsoft, and
belive that there are two reasonable ways to dispense with this
monopoly:
(1) An open formats solution
(*) Force Microsoft to document (openly, or for a reasonable
fee) the complete input, output, and/or file formats of all its
individually salable components. This would include, but not be
limited to:
(*) File formats such as .doc, .xls,
(*) APIs such as their device driver API
(*) Wire formats such as file sharing protocols, etc.
Other companies do this, and the public is the better for it.
Other companies do this and still make a profit.
Microsoft leverages the fact that their left hand and right hand
are synchronized, and this yields a large part of its power to
monopolize the desktop. If, for instance, they fully described the
format of .doc files, and made sure that any file of that format was
readable in Word, and that Word created files of only that format,
then people could migrate to and from Microsoft products AS BEST
SUITS THEM. This would allow market forces rather than monopoly
forces to dominate.
(2) A vertical split of the company
(*) Force microsoft to be vertically split at the OS and Office
levels. Give the source code for Windows/NT, Windows/ME, Windows/
2000 to three different companies, and allow no one to hold
positions on more than one BoD, etc.
The competition between the three OS firms for the Office
business, as well as vice versa, would (hopefully) yield more
opportunities for the non-MS alternatives. I believe the first one
is a far better solution than the second, but the second would be
acceptable. The current proposed solutions are weak, in that they
attempt to fix the problem with long-term enforcement, rather than
changing the rules today so that the market solves the problem
later. Microsoft's solution: giving lots of Software and Hardware to
Schools, is laughable. It would increase their market share and
mindshare without actually hurting the company or reshaping it in
any significant way. I strongly urge that this opportunity to fix
the monopolistic practices of
Microsoft be taken seriously, as subsequent attempts will be at
a great disadvantage if this fails.
--Jeff
MTC-00033189
From: Franklin L. DeRemer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklin L. DeRemer
8 South Circle Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1800
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, Franklin L. DeRemer
MTC-00033190
From: Philip A. McHugh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip A. McHugh
48 Chippendale Dr.
Mount Sinai, NY 11766
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30021]]
enforcement clause, a 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 casewas 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,
Philip A. McHugh
MTC-00033191
From: Patrick Payne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Payne
1064 Bardstown Road
Louisville, KY 40204
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, Patrick Payne
MTC-00033192
From: Shirley Marsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Marsh
1773 Vassar Ave.,
Mountain View, CA 94043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Shirley S. Marsh
MTC-00033193
From: Shirley Marsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Marsh
1773 Vassar Ave.,
Mountain View,, CA 94043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
[[Page 30022]]
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Shirley S. Marsh
MTC-00033194
From: Mary H. Polliard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary H. Polliard
28900 Wight Rd.
Malibu, Ca 90265-4001
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary H. & Tom Polliard
MTC-00033195
From: Norval Nickerson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norval Nickerson
2035 Vista Cajon
Newport Beach, CA 92660-3911
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30023]]
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,
Norval E. Nickerson
MTC-00033196
From: Kenneth Clare
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Clare
5239 Franceen Lane
Stockton, CA 95212
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Kenneth Clare
MTC-00033197
From: George Yablonsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Yablonsky
2717 S. Poplar St.
Santa Ana, CA 92704
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
George Yablonsky
MTC-00033198
From: Cecilia Maisel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cecilia Maisel
364 Villa Oaks Ln.
Gahanna, OH 43230-6773
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30024]]
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 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,
Cecilia Maisel
MTC-00033199
From: Margaret Reichard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Reichard
76 Seaview Ave.
Brick, NJ 08723-7220
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Margaret C. Reichard
MTC-00033200
From: Eric Thomas
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice,
Regarding the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v.
Microsoft, I would like to express my concern that this proposed
settlement is unacceptable in several key areas. Among them are the
following:
1. Microsoft would be allowed to continue many anti-competitive
practices aimed at preventing other vendors from including their
products in OEM packages.
2. There is no way to enforce the judgment, other than more and
more drawn-out legal proceeding.
I hope that the Department of Justice and the court will pay
heed to the many voices pointing out the problems in this settlement
and look for stronger remedies that will better serve the
marketplace and the public interest.
Regards,
Eric Thomas
Leominster, MA
Eric [email protected]://
www.isti.com
Tel: (978) 537-9049
Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc.
Systems Integration and Software Development Specialists
MTC-00033201
From: Warren W. Bestwick
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren W. Bestwick
233 No. State St.
Bellingham, WA 98225-5323
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30025]]
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 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,
Warren W. Bestwick
MTC-00033202
From: Lorin Meeder
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lorin Meeder
301 Roan Creek Drive
Parachute, CO 81635
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Lorin S. Meeder
MTC-00033203
From: Russell Gardner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Gardner
500 E. Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
R.M. Gardner
MTC-00033204
From: arne olsen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
arne olsen
6035 verde trl.s.
boca raton, fl 33433
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 30026]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
a.m.olsen
MTC-00033205
From: Frank Brunner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Brunner
70 Blackhawk
Park Forest, IL 60466-2146
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
F.G. Brunner
MTC-00033206
From: James Stephens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Stephens
3418 N. Susan Dr.
Decatur, , IL 62526-1332
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's
expense,
[[Page 30027]]
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,
James E. Stephens
MTC-00033207
From: William Mason
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Mason
639 S Fremont Circle
Green Valley, AZ 85614
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William T Mason
MTC-00033208
From: Robert Koch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Koch
621 Luther Road
Harrisburg, PA 17111-2057
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert M. Koch
MTC-00033209
From: Harvey and Charlene Knowles
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been
[[Page 30028]]
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,
Harvey and Charlene Knowles
7603--148th ST E
Puyallup, WA 98375-7019
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033210
From: William Meigs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Meigs
615 Jackson Heights
Danville, VA 24540-1051
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William R. Meigs
MTC-00033211
From: W. Robert Bloyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. Robert Bloyer
10901 Graystone Dr.
Hagerstown, MD 21740-7649
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
W. Robert Bloyer
MTC-00033212
From: Robert Curry
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Curry
5529 Tangelo Street
Leesberg, FL 34748-8997
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30029]]
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 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,
Robert C. Curry
MTC-00033213
From: Alice Palumbo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Palumbo
15366 Sabre Dr.
Corpus Christi, TX 78418
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Alice Palumbo
MTC-00033214
From: Harold Hardison
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Hardison
2545 Jetport Rd
Kinston, NC 28504
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30030]]
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,
Sen. Harold Hardison
MTC-00033215
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: gov
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am against the proposed settlement of the DOJ suit against
Microsoft. Although Microsoft claims that they have innovated, those
of us more intimately aware of the truth are not fooled. In fact,
they have squashed far more innovative competitors with the kind of
illegal actions of which they have been found guilty. Even worse,
they have lowered accepted standards of reliability greatly, with
the result being tremendous loss of productivity internationally as
their operating systems crash and are compromised by numerous
viruses. Any settlement needs to prevent Microsoft from continuing
on this path of anti-competitive behavior. The proposed settlement
seems far too weak to accomplish this necessary goal.
Laura Wallace
Quality Assurance Engineer
3 Hilda Rd.
Bedford, MA 01730
MTC-00033216
From: Faye E. Gardner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Faye E. Gardner
10500 Academy, NE #334
Albuquerque, NM 87111
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Faye E. Gardner
MTC-00033217
From: Robert Montgomery
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Montgomery
W. Coronet Dr.
Sun City West, AZ 85375-5122
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert M. Montgomery
MTC-00033218
From: Robert Cooch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Cooch
2701 Daleview
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 30031]]
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert A. Cooch
MTC-00033219
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are several issues that the proposed settlement needs to
address, in order that Microsoft not walk away unpunished for their
CRIMINAL behaviour.
1. Protecting Open Source
The proposed final settlement offer contains language intended
to let Microsoft itself determine who is qualified to have access to
the technical information intended to allow other operating systems
to interoperate with Microsoft software. In point of fact, the
language specifically claims their right to require that those party
to interoperability information be businesses. This is clearly
intended to to discriminate against the MANY software projects that
are run entirely as volunteer efforts. The court should require that
any technical information that Microsoft is required to disclose
must be available to the public, so that the public itself might act
in redressing the harm created by Microsoft's illegal tactics.
2. Closed File Formats Are A tool of Monopoly One of the most
insidious tactics used by Microsoft in the construction of their
monopoly in business productivity and personal computing software is
the creation of incompatible, undocumented file formats. In addition
the tactic of making new versions of their software produce files
that were incompatible with their old software led to their being in
effect able to require users of their software to upgrade their
systems on their schedule.
The fact that Microsoft's file formats were undocumented has
meant that competitors were effectively locked out of providing
equivalent services to consumers who had unwisely chosen to use
Microsoft products and that those consumers were themselves harmed
in that their property was held hostage to Microsoft's software and
would need to be either abandoned or (at great expense) converted to
some other format.
3. Security Needs Of Consumers and Appropriate Liability
A further issue that could be addressed by the court is
Microsoft's liability for the millions of person-hours of time
wasted in dealing with the inadequacies of their operating system
and of their email products.
A clear statement by the court that consumers had at a minimum
an implied warranty of functionality, including an expectation of
data privacy in the form of mechanisms to prevent both Microsoft
itself and others from altering, destroying or illicitly copying
data without it's owners permission; would set a clear precedent
that software is the same as any other class of product and should
not be allowed to exempt itself from product liability through
specious End User License Agreements. In that a product sold in
exchange for value should meet a reasonable buyers expectations for
functionality and safety.
MTC-00033220
From: Robert Noonan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Noonan
112Massachusetts Rd
New Bern, NC 28562
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30032]]
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,
Robert J Noonan
MTC-00033221
From: Irma Schneider
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irma Schneider
114 Fairfield Circle
Ventura, CA 93003-8850
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Irma A. Schneider
MTC-00033222
From: Glen W. Mabey
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern: I would like to comment on the Proposed
Final Judgement in the United States vs. Microsoft case.
My concern relates to the absence of requirements for Microsoft
to disclose file formats used by its programs. This issue has been
established as a part of the Applications Barrier to Entry in
Findings of Fact paragraphs 20 and 39.
The pervasive use of Microsoft Office products has rendered
their respective file formats as the de facto standard for normal
office document interchange. However, since the format of these
documents is unpublished, there is no reason to believe that this
monopolistic situation will change any time in the near future.
Only a legally mandated disclosure of these file formats can
hope to restore a competetive nature to this aspect of computing.
Furthermore, I believe that given previous behavior by Microsoft,
the following stipulation is also necessary: that any inaccuracy in
the published specification for these file formats result in a
punishment which is;
*) severe,
*) automatic, and
*) that the consequences for doing so be also stipulated in the
Final Judgement.
Respectfully submitted,
Glen Mabey
MTC-00033223
From: Jean Noonan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Noonan
112Massachusetts Rd
New Bern, NC 28562
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jean Noonan
MTC-00033224
From: johnoburghart
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
[[Page 30033]]
Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to
all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of
Appeals ruling; however the settlement is not guaranteed until after
the review ends and the District Court determines whether the terms
are indeed in the public interest. John O Burghart
MTC-00033225
From: Alfred Bivens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfred Bivens
508 Meadows Drive S.
Richland, WA 99352-7731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
A. H. Bivens, Major, USMC (Ret)
MTC-00033226
From: Carl Thomas
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Thomas
164 Kimberlea Road
Madison Heights, VA 24572-6131
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carl E. Thomas
MTC-00033227
From: Chet Boreck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chet Boreck
3 Wales Court
Forked River, NJ 08731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30034]]
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 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,
Chet Boreck
MTC-00033228
From: jonpi
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Re: [lug] Microsoft Settlement
alta wrote:
Department of Justice:
During my 25-year span as a computer professional, I have
watched Microsoft grow. I continue to be appalled that Microsoft has
been able to sell unreliable, defective products using the following
practices:
--Advertising non-existent products to kill legitimate
competition.
--Buying companies in order to kill them
--Forcing large distributors to install Microsoft, only.
--Covering defective product internals with glitter and gold.
--Licenses that give them immunity to damage from defective
products.
--Large campaign contributions to buy protection from
government.
The result has been:
--Many innovative companies have been destroyed.
--The world-dominant operating system (Windows) is defective,
--Users have come to expect that software crashes are normal.
--Due to licensing practices allowed in our (and other)
countries,
--Microsoft is the only business of its size that is
unaccountable
--for damages due to defects in its products.
--Windows is a serious threat to national security and to
businesses.
--Now under investigation, they STILL continue these practices.
--Even the US government seems unable to touch this monopoly.
I ask that you do what needs to be done with Microsoft. Please
protect our national security, and give technological users and
innovators a chance.
I started to write to the doj and ended up getting too angry to
form sentences what you are seeing is your dept of justice about to
do injustice...so it goes you can't fight city hall but you can be
sure none of your assets go to mr big bad scared little boy billy
boy gates in times of justice he would go down in a hail of bullets,
forget pies yes...let's watch our doj at work in the mean
time...sell all your redhat stock and buy kmart stock...before
monday and, ponder why peak is not just dialup...JUST!!!
jonpi
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033229
From: Carl Thornton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Thornton
2357 Caminito Afuera
San Diego, Ca 92107-1512
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carl F Thornton
MTC-00033230
From: Howard Rathlesberger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Rathlesberger
230 Ridgeway Road
Woodside, CA 94062
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30035]]
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 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,
Howard & Jean Rathlesberger
MTC-00033231
From: Arthur Beaman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Beaman
1673 Nottingham Dr.
Winter Park, FL 32792-2225
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Wayne Beaman
MTC-00033232
From: Vance Mitchell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vance Mitchell
1200 Polnell Shore Drive E.
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
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,
[[Page 30036]]
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,
Vance F. Mitchell
MTC-00033233
From: Irving Thorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irving Thorn
1709 Pegasus Ave.
Rio Rancho, NM 87124-2919
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
IIrving Thorn
MTC-00033234
From: Everett DeJager
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Everett DeJager
8622 Plainfield Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45236-1704
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
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,
Everett DeJager
MTC-00033235
From: Anna Mae Frahm
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anna Mae Frahm
22946 594 Ave
Mankato, MN 56001-8525
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30037]]
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 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,
Anna Mae Frahm
MTC-00033236
From: Diane Williams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Williams
3742 W. South Blvd
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-3975
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John and Diane Williams
MTC-00033237
From: Rosemary Daleo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosemary Daleo
1410 N. 13th Ave.
MELROSE PARK, IL 60160
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Rosemary Daleo & Paula Daleo
MTC-00033238
From: Orval D Grieser
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
[[Page 30038]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Orval D Grieser
116 Quail Run
Archbold, Oh 43502
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Orval D. Grieser
MTC-00033239
From: Patricia Thompson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Thompson
6205 Hancock
Rowlett, tx 75088
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Patricia Thompson
MTC-00033240
From: Kathryn Bell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Bell
4326 Gum Branch Road
Jacksonville, NC 28540-9118
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30039]]
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an
unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Kathryn Bell
MTC-00033242
From: Steve Hensley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Steve Hensley
3615 Garrett Road
Durham, NC 27707-2444
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033243
From: Walter Rittwage
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Rittwage
73 Hullcrest Road
Shelburne, VT 05482
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Walter G Rittwage
MTC-00033244
From: Michael Patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Patterson
9904 NE 124th St. #1006
Kirkland, WA 98034 January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 30040]]
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,
Michael Patterson
MTC-00033245
From: Herman Pusin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Pusin
830 West 40 St. Apt. 855
Baltimore , MD 21211
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Herman Pusin
MTC-00033246
From: Sidney Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sidney Miller
9217 Nile Dr
New Port Richey, FL 34655-1609
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Sidney T Miller
MTC-00033247
From: empty
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
Mark Ball
MTC-00033248
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 4:57pm
Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Smartcode ObjectSet 1.0
From: John Gillis
Subject: microsoft settlement
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:55:00
Organization: John Gillis/Architects
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=``=PMail:=--0002
[[Page 30041]]
@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U''
Message-ID:
--=PMail:=--0002@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001 =
Dear District Court Judge:
My comment on the Microsoft settlement is that Microsoft should
be left alone. = T
he antitrust case should never have been brought against the
company. The idea that Microsoft is a monopoly is not only false,
but my own persona= l experience adds additional proof.
None of the systems in our office use Microsoft products, so how
can it be that Microsoft is a coercive monopoly. How come they
haven't coerced our company?
Nonetheless millions of people have freely chosen to use Windows
and other Microsoft products. It is shameful that the government has
gone after this innovative company.
Sincerely,
John Gillis/Architects
41 East 11th Street
New York, NY 10003
212 254 5010
212 777 9224 fax
[email protected]
--=PMail:=--0002@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U--
MTC-00033249
From: Wiliam Kent
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wiliam Kent
367 E 600 S
Monroe, UT 84754
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William Kent
MTC-00033250
From: Harold Keebler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Keebler
76838 Abby Ct
Palm Desert, Ca 92211-7102
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Harold M. Keebler
MTC-00033251
From: Jeannine Kocsis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeannine Kocsis
102 Deerfield Ave
Port Charlotte , FL 33952
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
[[Page 30042]]
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jeannine M. Kocsis
MTC-00033252
From: Michael A. Teutsch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael A. Teutsch
822 Almasy Dr.
Campbell, Oh 44405-2002
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
Please be advised that as a taxpayer and consumer I support the
Microsoft Settlement and hopefully a prompt court acceptance to
prevent lengthy litigation that could 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.
It will be a great benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states to avoid
additional costs and 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, and the taxpayers deserve the benefit of taking effect
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted at great
cost to all Americans.
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 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 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,
Michael A. Teutsch
MTC-00033253
From: CHARLES Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CHARLES Lee
601 N 4th St
Mascoutah, IL 62258-1205
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30043]]
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,
Charles Lee
MTC-00033254
From: John Culver
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Culver
19 Hammersmith Dr
Saugus, MA 01906-4170
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Culver
MTC-00033255
From: Francis Bagbey
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Bagbey
103 Green Park Lane
Cary, NC 27511
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Francis C. Bagbey
MTC-00033256
From: Jim & Louise Georgen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim & Louise Georgen
7308 sw 35th Avenue
Portland, or 97219-1745
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30044]]
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 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,
Jim & Louise Georgen
MTC-00033257
From: Joe Sunthimer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Sunthimer
RR4 Box 207
Nevada, MO 64772-9234
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Joe Sunthimer
MTC-00033258
From: Lon Wells
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lon Wells
28126 Peacock Ridge Dr. #105
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30045]]
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,
Lon Wells
MTC-00033259
From: Norman Brubaker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norman Brubaker
233 Monroe Street
Bridgewater, NJ 08807-3043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my sincere support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost USA taxpayers more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Probably the greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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: like 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 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, 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,
Norman H. Brubaker
MTC-00033260
From: Tom Kulaga
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am entirely against the current settlement proposal. Calling
it a slap on the wrist would be overstating the case, and if the
Court believes Microsoft is in violation of any anti-trust statutes,
the Court is honor-bound to determine whether the proposed
settlement offers anything remotely close to a remedy.
The current settlement does nothing of the kind. Microsoft
should be separated into an Operating System division and a Software
and Applications division. They should be entirely seperate
entities, with no sharing in any area, especially sales and
marketing. Leaving them intact is akin to allowing Ford Motor
Company to control the Department of Transportation, giving them the
option of changing the rules of the road to accept only the cars
they build, leaving other auto companies to go broke following a
target they'll never hit.
So long as Microsoft's sales and marketing people can dictate a
combined product strategy for Operating Systems and Applications,
the Internet Explorer/Netscape issue will continue to happen, with
only the victims changing names.
Regards,
Tom Kulaga
MTC-00033261
From: Richard Conway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Conway
88715 Potter Ln.
Springfield, OR 97478-9616
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard L. Conway
MTC-00033262
From: Michael Stanzel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust
[[Page 30046]]
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael Stanzel
2510 96th Ave Ct E
Edgewood, WA 98371-2172
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033263
From: Paul Roebuck
To: USDJ
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
What a pathetic crock of shit. Two years of legal proceedings
for this? This has been a complete waste of time and money on
everyone's part if nothing was really intended to be done about
antitrust abuse.
Tis indeed a sad day that the US government lays down before MS.
Yet another slap on the wrist that will be ignored. Unfortunate for
Netscape and all the others before it that essentially nothing will
be done.
Should have stuck with the breakup decision... if MS Office was
available on alternative platforms (like Linux), Windows would have
to stand on its own merits. Then users could choose office software
separately from OS software. It would also prevent any more of this
application/OS blending since the application could not be made
cross-platform.
Out of the 10Base-T, through the router, down the T1, over the
leased line, off the bridge, past the firewall... nothing but Net.
MTC-00033264
From: Roman Peisinger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roman Peisinger
1 Towers Park Lane #915
San Antoniol, TX 78209-6435
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Roman J. Peisinger
MTC-00033265
From: Robert Lloyd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lloyd
6314 Allott
Van Nuys, ca 91401
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I support the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v.
Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost more than $35
million. Enough is enough.
The parties worked very hard to reach this agreement, which has
the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years
from now. The terms of the settlement are fair to the computer users
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes.
This settlement is in the public interest. I urge the DOJ to submit
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court
without change.
Sincerely,
Robert Lloyd
MTC-00033266
From: J(038)B Seybold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
While the proposed settlement appears to meet the defined goals,
I am very concerned that the definition of ``Microsoft
Middleware Product'' in the ``REVISED PROPOSED FINAL
JUDGMENT'' is far too narrow and restrictive. Specifically, in
``Section IV, Definitions'', paragraph K.2.b.i, the
definition states ``...is, or in the year preceding the
commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was,
distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by
Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System Product...''
This definition appears to exclude functionality which was based
directly upon or substantially identical in function to the a
previous commercial product, but where said functionality was
modified by Microsoft. This is a major exclusion, because it is very
rare in commercial software for unchanged software to published for
two consecutive years. It is common practice for Microsoft to modify
software, either by reducing functionality, or by adding
functionality, when incorporating the functionality of previously
commercial software. Under the provisions of the proposed
definition, similar but distinctly different functionality would
exclude such modified software from the Microsoft Middleware Product
definition.
[[Page 30047]]
Microsoft could therefore make small or even trivial changes in
software that would otherwise be clearly defined as Microsoft Middle
Product, and thereby claim that it was exempt from the provisions of
this judgment.
Further, the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware
Product'' in the ``REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT''
carefully excludes new software functionality developed by Microsoft
and included as Microsoft Middleware or as part of the Windows
operating system, with the intent of competing directly with
commercially available software to reduce competition. The pattern
shown in the development and release of Internet Explorer,
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows
Messenger, and Outlook Express is now being repeated in many other
areas. For example, the capabilities of Microsoft Backup has been
extended to include the file backup functionality provided by
NovaStor Corporation's NovaDisk, or Veritas Corporation's Backup
Exec. Since NovaStor and Veritas have not been acquired by
Microsoft, Microsoft Backup does not meet the definition of a
Microsoft Middleware Product.
Therefore, I suggest that the Proposed Final Judgment does not
provide the necessary restrictions to preclude continued
anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft to unlawfully protect and
maintain its operating system monopoly in violation of Section 2 of
the Sherman Act. I suggest that Specifically, in ``Section IV,
Definitions'', paragraph K.2.b.i, be modified to state
``i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by
from a Windows Operating System Product,''
thank you for your consideration
John B. Seybold
MTC-00033267
From: Fabretti, Ron C
To: ``Ms. Renatta Hesse''
Date: 1/24/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Renatta Hesse,
Ill conceived and misdirected is how I view the antitrust suit
against Microsoft. The attack against Microsoft is an attack against
the freedom to pursue a private business enterprise in an open
market. Credit for the attack goes to the many bureaucratic
socialists, collectivists, or worse, of the last administration.
Microsoft's business success results in compounding new
opportunities and unseen business dynamics. They should be blamed?
Where were the plaintiffs when Microsoft began? Microsoft could have
been purchased by any number if industry giants during Microsoft's
humble beginnings. Now, after Microsoft succeeds in a market that no
one foresaw, they are at fault? No matter what they do to grow their
business, outside of physical harm to humanity, they should be free
to pursue the business of providing a service for a price. No fair
stepping in after the fact and changing the rules, something
socialists and collectivists do to be involved, for the supposed
good of mankind, when ``free'' welfare is what they really
dream of. Bill Gates worked long and hard for many years and had no
idea 20 years ago his company would be where it is today. He should
run it as he sees fit without interference from any entity. And 20
years is insignificant compared to the millions supposedly before us
or hopefully after us. By the way, I'd guess Bill Gates does plenty,
out of his own pocket, to pursue the health and welfare of mankind
in general.
Respectfully yours,
Ronald Fabretti
1205 Hon Falls 5 Pts Rd
Honeoye Falls, NY 14472
MTC-00033268
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 5:09am
Subject: just putting in my $.02:
just putting in my $.02:
Integrating Internet explorer wiht windows *should* have sent up
red flags. you cant swing a webpage in widows without using Internet
explorer. you cant even uninstall it (it installs automatically on
win98 and above) without considerable knowledge.
how can one expect a person who doesnt know much about computers
to run netscape if they choose (or any other browser for that
matter) microsoft should be broken up into smaller companies. and
have to compete. microsoft makes games that can only be played on
microsoft platforms. that should be one company browsers should be
de-integrated and installed by choice. browser should be a different
company.
and the Operating system should be built alone. another company.
this would encourage better programming on the part of microsoft
makeing for a better product for the consumer. and more jobs on the
market. (from competeing companies and MS itself)
again just my $.02
Andy Nelson
Certified computer nerd!
MTC-00033269
From: Joe Scoglio
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Scoglio
573 Shirley St
Winthrop, MA 02152
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Joe Scoglio
MTC-00033270
From: Jim Denison
To: ASKDOJ
Date: 1/24/02 5:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12824 Midway Road #1140
Dallas, Texas 75244
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing today to express my strong sentiments on the
Microsoft anti-trust dispute. I support Microsoft in this, and I
feel the settlement reached on November 6, 2001,
[[Page 30048]]
is fair and reasonable. I am happy to see that this dispute has been
resolved.
I believe that Microsoft has had a positive impact on the
technology industry and the economy. Microsoft has made it easier
for the average consumer to conduct business. I believe the
technology revolution that we have experienced in the last decade
would not have been possible without contributions from Microsoft.
I feel this settlement will serve in the best interest of the
public. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Jim Denison
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033271
From: Thomas Huvane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Huvane
46 Bradley Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas A. Huvane
MTC-00033272
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: dept. of justice
Date: 1/24/02 6:31am
Subject: Microsoft settelment -------- Original
Message --------
Subject: Open file formats
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:21:52 -0500
From: Marek Kiela
To: ``dept. of justice''
I would like to comment on the Microsoft case.
There should be a push towards opening Microsoft file formats (
ea.. Word, Excel ) if government doesn't want to find itself in a
position where Bill Gates will dictate when and what software to use
and how much to put in his coffers.
It only make sense that user should be able to use any word
processor to open a document, or any spreadsheet program to open a
spreadsheet and so on.
You do not have to break company apart to force competition.
Just insist that in order to get government software contracts, it
has to be open file format.
Regards
Marek Kiela
[email protected]
Canada
MTC-00033273
From: Beth Jelinski
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am sick and tired of the jealousy and pettiness of this
lawsuit against Microsoft. The consumers who are supposedly hurt are
not being helped by the lawsuit. It seems to me it is socialism in
action. ``Everyone should be equal; no one can show up anyone
else by their excellence in product production or shrewdness in
marketing'' etc. etc. It is like unto those who take all the
fun out of Little League competition by giving EVERYONE a
meaningless trophy. The lawsuit against
Microsoft, in a childish way, send the message ``You can't
win. There can be no winners. If there are winners, they will be
coerced to share their winnings with the loser who puts up the
biggest fuss.'' I say, let the losers,
Netscape in this case, find a better way to EXCEL; and then they
won't be crying about Microsoft's success, but touting their own.
I dare say if that happened they would be very chagrined and
reluctant to hand over their newly acquired profits to Microsoft.
Let us rather put an end to this government favoritism and let
capitalism thrive producing better products for us all. Competition
and freedom are what have driven all of our great accomplishments.
We all suffer when slavery is enforced.
Sincerely,
Beth Jelinski
166 State Street
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
MTC-00033274
From: Anne Gille
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anne Gille
810 Shady Way
Arlington Hts,, IL 60005
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30049]]
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 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,
Anne M. Gille
MTC-00033275
From: Gail Rollin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gail Rollin
303 Jenny's Cove Road
Cleveland, GA 30528
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Gail Rollin
MTC-00033276
From: ROBERT MAXWELL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT MAXWELL
974 QUESTA E.
VENICE, FL 34292
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
ROBERT J. MAXWELL
MTC-00033277
From: Perry Sowell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
perry sowell
340tate
senatobia, ms 38668
[[Page 30050]]
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
perry sowell
MTC-00033278
From: Daren Wade
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daren Wade
312 SE Colony Dr
Lee's Summit, MO 64063-3209
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Daren Wade
MTC-00033279
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Cramer
100 Farmers Bank Square
suite 230
Georgetown, KY 40324
MTC-00033280
From: Bill Rinker
To: U.S. Dept. Justice
Date: 1/24/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The AOL Time Warner/Netscape should not be considered and
consequently thrown out of court. I see no evidence that Microsoft
has interfered illegally with the distribution of the Netscape
Browser. Don't be pressured into litigation from the big AOL Time
Warner complex. It's sour grapes because they cannot keep up with
their Microsoft competition. These kinds of litigation will
eventually stifle innovation & ideas. Why should Microsoft
suffer when they have the best browser called Microsoft Internet
Explorer? Why should Companies share their ideas with competition?
Bill Rinker
P.O. Box 333
Moran, Wyoming 83013
[[Page 30051]]
MTC-00033281
From: grace gault
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
grace gault
2354 wilderness hill
san antonio, tx 78231-1826
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Grace Gault & Aggie Ussery
MTC-00033282
From: newman
To: DOJ
Date: 1/24/02 7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ:
I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is fair and
that a speedie resolution to this matter is in the best interest of
the public.
James B. Newman
MTC-00033283
From: Herbert Ziff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Ziff
661 Wall St.
Elmira, NY 14905-1423
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Herbert M. Ziff
MTC-00033284
From: Jerry Friesen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Friesen
1006 E. Harding Drive
Appleton, WI 54915
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30052]]
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 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,
Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Friesen
MTC-00033285
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Norton
877 Valley Chapel Road
Walla Walla, WA 99362
MTC-00033286
From: RROBERT KINNEY
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2 THORNWOOD CT
SETAUKET, NY 11733-1823
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
ROBERT KINNEY
MTC-00033287
From: Stephen Starliper
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Starliper
12300 Amberset Dr
Knoxville, Tn 37922
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30053]]
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a
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.
Regards,
Stephen L. Starliper
MTC-00033288
From: D.V. KLIER
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
D.V. KLIER
5901 W MARGINAL WAY SW
SEATTLE, WA 98106
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
D.V. KLIER
MTC-00033289
From: Lionel C. Abrahams
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I do not agree with the proposed settlement. It appears that
Microsoft has again done a run around the government, and getting
away with this crime.
Microsoft is still continuing their high pressure tactics to
eliminate the competition and by helping other third parties to do
their biddings for them.
No later than last month, my broadband ISP changed from
@home.net to @charter.net. They supplied me with a CD
and a Web site to ``automate'' this process. For a PC
user, this would have AUTOMATICALLY installed Microsoft IE,
disregarding the fact that I use Netscape. It also would have me
automatically register on Microsoft .NET service, to change my email
address!
I had to call Charter support, and forcefully request the non
MicroSoft procedure. Only when I asked them for the requirements
that I have to have Windows installed, only then did they give me
the non MS URL to change my email, never needing to install, nor use
the MS supplied software to switch.
This is just MY example on how MicroSoft is still ``dealing
under the table'' to continue their unlawful monopolistic
tactics.
Lionel C. Abrahams
...Mailed to you by PMMail/2 2.20.2370
running eCS--PRO 1.01 (OS/2 Warp 4.51) :-)
MTC-00033290
From: Charles W. Arnold
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles W. Arnold
537 Borris Rd.
Furlong, PA 18925
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30054]]
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,
Charles W. Arnold
MTC-00033291
From: Michael Fletcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Fletcher
5395 Underwood Ave.
Baton Rouge, La 70805
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
PLEASE END THIS LAWSUIT! I DO NOT WANT MY MONEY SPENT IN THIS
WAY AS I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE PLANTIFFS IN THIS SUIT HAVE BEEN
HARMED. NETSCAPE MADE A WONDERFUL DEAL WITH AOL AND HAS MOVED ON. AT
THE TIME OF THE ``INJUSTICE'' I HAD BOTH NETSCAPE AND
MICROSOFT'S BROWSERS ON MY COMPUTER AND USED BOTH.
IF YOU CONTINUE THIS SUIT, IT WILL ONLY SEND A MESSAGE TO NEW
BUSINESS THAT IF THEY CAN'T MAKE IT IN THE MARKET, THEY WILL BE ABLE
TO SUE IN COURT AND LET THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR
THEM. THIS WILL ONLY STIFLE GROWING BUSINESSES AND SEND THE MESSAGE
THAT IF YOU GET TOO LARGE, BIG BROTHER IS GOING TO SUE YOU, OR IF
YOU GET REALLY TOO SUCESSFUL - IT WILL PUT YOU OUT OF WORK. THIS IS
NOT THE MESSAGE WE NEED TO BE SENDING TO YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WISH TO
START THEIR OWN COMPANY.
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Michael D. Fletcher
MTC-00033292
From: A. Slatin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A. Slatin
8301 E. Sheridan st.
Scottsdale, Az 85257
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mr. amd Mrs. A. Slatin
MTC-00033293
From: Virginia Legare
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Virginia Legare
255 Coconut Palm Rd.
Vero Beach, Fl 32963
[[Page 30055]]
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Virginia Legare
MTC-00033294
From: Marjorie McGee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie McGee
14515 Granite Vly Dr #C625
Sun City West, AZ 85375
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the
settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
John and Marge McGee
MTC-00033295
From: William D. Jemison
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William D. Jemison
1460 Eastridge
Memphis, TN 38120
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in
the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the
litigation would finally be exhausted.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors,
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products.
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own.
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft
application or elementof an operating system and install other
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products
developed by Microsoft
[[Page 30056]]
competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a
Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the
next five years, at thecompany's expense, and monitor Microsoft's
behavior andcompliance with the settlement.
Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even
covers issues andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest,
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to
the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
W.D. Jemison Jr.
MTC-00033296
From: Ed Lowry
To: USDoJ Antitrust Div
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
From: Edward S. Lowry
7 Alder Way
Bedford Mass 01730
781 276-4098
[email protected]
http://www.ultranet.com/eslowry
January 24, 2002
To: Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotely
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20001
cc: U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Subject: Microsoft settlement, blunt their complexity weapon
Dear Justice Kollar-Kotely: Over 30 years of anticompetitive
behavior in the softwareindustry have been far more destructive than
the proceedings inthe Microsoft case have suggested. Microsoft's
abuse of itscompetitors is a minor part of larger destructive
effects.
The designers of antitrust legislation probably
nevercontemplated an industry where market competition could be
soeasily thwarted. The large inherent complexity of software
makeschanging vendors difficult. This creates a business incentive
forall vendors to make software more complex than it needs to
be.Competition is further weakened by incentives for vendors
andothers to claim they are trying to simplify while
actuallypursuing contrary policies, thus discouraging real efforts
atlarge scale simplification. It is further weakened by theexistence
of so many people with prestige or profit incentives tocomplicate
other peoples'' lives. I have decades of experienceworking on
simplification and observing deliberate obstruction oflarge scale
simplification by prestigious organizations. MYEXPERIENCE HAS BEEN
CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT HIDING THETRUTH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
FOR SIMPLIFICATION HAS BEEN A HIGHPRIORITY AMONG SOFTWARE LEADERS
FOR DECADES.
This pattern makes correcting for past and
prospectiveanticompetitive behavior in software both difficult
andnecessary. Your authority to protect the public interest is
nowprecious to society at large. I recommend that you take no
actionwhich limits the exercise of your authority until remedies
whichyou set in motion have been demonstrated to be effective. I
alsorecommend that your attention focus largely on reducing
theeffectiveness of needless complexity as a tool to
thwartcompetition.
The consumer need for simplicity in computing has always
beenhuge and obvious. Millions of people every day bear
enormousburdens of needless complexity which are a direct result
ofdisregard for the public interest by the software industry.
THERE ARE ONLY A FEW DOZEN PEOPLE ANYWHERE WHO HAVE
USEDPROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SEMANTICS FOR NON-TRIVIAL APPLICATIONS
ASADVANCED IN ALLOWING FOR SIMPLICITY OF EXPRESSION AS WHAT
IBMDESIGNED OVER 25 YEARS AGO. The gross failure of
marketplacecompetition to provide incentives to make
reasonablesimplifications is a matter of demonstrable fact.In part
to provide some confirmation of the 25 year delay, Iasked U.S.
Senator John Kerry to make an inquiry related to theseissues. The
main question is whether anyone working in theFederal Government has
experience using software technology whichallows for simplicity as
advanced as what was designed over 25years ago. He initiated that
inquiry in December 2000 and hasn'treported finding anyone yet. The
lack of such experience amongtechnical advisors can be demonstrated
fairly easily using theattached programming examples. Failure to
take first steps insimplifying software has blocked a series of
potentialsimplifications.
Results of decades of deliberate anticompetitive resistance
tolarge scale simplification in software include:--deficient
math and science education due to failure to express precise
information precisely.
--a flood of needless and burdensome complexity going into
schools as educational technology.
--users entangled in proprietary complexity for decades.
--massive degradation of the quality of technical information:
accessibility, usability, clarity, interoperability, ductility.
--a probable contributing factor to crash of KA801 in Guam,
August 1997, 226 dead.
--a possible contributing factor to 20% of US casualties in the
Gulf War.
--failure of the FAA to upgrade its air traffic safety systems.
--massive government waste such as the IRS modernization
effort.
--mismatch between employment skills needed and those
available.
--major ``innovations'' are ``square
wheel'' unreasonable.
--political leaders dependent on technical advisors who are
over 25 years behind the leading edge on simplicity issues.
burdensome technological instability. illusions of progress and
illusions of effort to make progress.
large learning loads for skills of ephemeral value. Several
hundred feet of bookshelf space (e.g. at Barnes and Noble) to tell
people how to tell their computers what they want.
--massive vulnerability to computer viruses.
For decades there has been almost nothing standing between
thepublic and this kind of abuse. At present there is almost
nothingto prevent still more decades of the same. Remedies
appropriateto the scale of past damage and the prospect of future
damage areneeded. That requires assessing the scale of the damage
and Idoubt there has been any realistic effort to do so. A great
dealdepends on your response. It doubt that Microsoft will agree
toanything potent enough to correct for this overall pattern.
The most serious damage of anti-competitive behavior in
softwarehas probably been to obstruct improvement in technical
education.On a massive scale, educators teach how to arrange pieces
ofinformation. However, by failing to understand simplification,they
have almost no idea what is a reasonable structure forpieces of
information. One result is a failure to express preciseinformation
in precise ways, and that imposes a large needlessburden on
students. Imagine cities where the architects andbuilders had never
seen a reasonably shaped brick. Both technicaleducation and software
technology are mired in a comparable stateof reasonableness today.
For over 30 years I have been working to clarify how to
makesoftware and other technical description simple, mainly at
IBMand Digital Equipment Corporation. I have observed a high levelof
confidence among software leaders that there would be
noaccountability for opposing large scale simplification. I
canelaborate on all of the above from long experience.
The anticompetitive behavior has distorted antitrust
proceedingsby keeping participants in a state of technical
ignorance. Byaccepting prevailing stunted understanding of
simplicity insoftware from people who are demonstrably 25 years
behind theleading edge, the Department of Justice has probably
tended tosee existing ongoing dependency relationships between
vendors andusers of software technology as largely the result of
complexitywhich is inherent in the technology. That is unrealistic
becauseso much of the complexity has been caused by deliberate
actionsby vendors. It would also appear that the potential
forcompetitiveness is more limited than it actually is. Such
viewswould have probably biased Department of Justice toward non-
intervention and obscured the potential for judicial remedies.
The proposed settlement agreement itself looks like a
hollowgesture resulting partly from poor technical understanding
atDoJ. It focuses on assuring equitable access to the market
for``middleware''. Middleware as defined amounts to
software forexecuting
[[Page 30057]]
special purpose languages. The need for such softwarewould be
greatly altered and diminished if serious efforts tosimplify were
made. Accepting such an agreement would put thecourt in a position
of depending on continued large scaleanticompetitive behavior in the
industry in order to place minorrestraints on Microsoft.
The best available analysis of the fine structure of information
supports the view that almost all computerized information is
represented in ways that are unreasonable in much the same way that
square wheels are unreasonable. No other field of technology has
been afflicted by such perversity. No other community of
technologists have been so oblivious about their most basic
structures. The consequences have disastrously damaged information
quality and disabled human minds. It has been largely unnoticed
because people have no other experience. While that analysis [see
``Toward Perfect Information Microstructures'' on my web
site] may be viewed as unverified, not even the beginnings of a
technically sound alternative analysis exists. It includes easily
understood reasons why simplification allows
``middleware'' or special purpose languages to be
displaced by much more versatile general purpose language. Patents
now owned by Compaq Corporation have helped to prevent corrective
measures.
I hope that you will assess the effectiveness and
destructiveness of the anticompetitive behavior. You could ask the
parties to the case: who among them has working familiarity with
software for simplicity as advanced as IBM developed over 25 years
ago (using the test below). Noting the above paper arguing that the
basic structures of software technology are now ``square
wheel'' unreasonable, you could ask whether any can identify a
sound presentation of an alternative technical view. In addition the
intent should be assessed. To what extent has obliviousness to
needless complexity been used as a concealed weapon against
competitors? My story supports such intent.
I hope that you will be bold in developing remedies and prepared
for some contention. Major social upheavals have sometimes
accompanied simplifications in law and religion. Publicly asking
embarrassing questions like the above could help a 10t. Such
questions have been passionately evaded for many years. Even a U.S.
Senator has had difficulty eliciting answers.
Microsoft could be required to support large scale
simplification in a variety of ways. They could be required to
respond to or financially support challenges to understand
simplification like the $25K offer on my web site. Another approach
would be to require that they incorporate a conceptually self-
contained interface into Windows which provides broad capability
with simplicity close to the best available understanding of how to
do so. It could be aimed specifically at educational use, at least
initially. Rolling back the unwelcome intrusion into education of
mysteriousness and technological instability could be major
achievable goals of such an effort. It could be partly defined in
terms of avoiding damage to quality of user information. I can
provide additional supporting documents and other assistance. Let me
know if I can help .
Yours respectfully
Ed Lowry
SHANNON Examples Compared with SEQUEL 2
To assist in validating a 25 year delay in improving simplicity
of expression, and raising quality standards in future efforts, the
following list of example expressions are provided. They indicate
what degree of simplicity and clarity is achievable in a multi-
purpose language and roughly what was known to be achievable in 1974
as recorded in: ``PROSE Specification'' by E. S. Lowry,
IBM Poughkeepsie Laboratory Technical Report TR 00.2902. It was
dated Nov 1977 but it was distributed within IBM in Dec 1974.
These examples are translated from the first 10 examples given
for Sequel 2 (now SQL) in the IBM Journal of R&D, Nov 1976. For
the first 10 expressions Sequel 2 (a specialized data base language)
uses 130 tokens. Shannon (a multi-purpose language) uses 99 tokens.
The original Sequel 2 code is omitted as irrelevant. The significant
comparisons would be with C++, Java, Ada, Cobol, etc.
Expression 1.
English: Names of employees in Dept. 50
Shannon: name of employee of dept(50)
Expression 2.
Eng: All the different department numbers in the Employee table.
Shan: dept--no of employee condense
Expression 3.
Eng: Names of employees in Depts. 25, 47 and 53.
Shan: name of employee of every dept where 25 or 47 or 53
Expression 4.
Eng: Names of employees who work for departments in Evanston.
Shan: name of employee of dept of Evanston
Expression 5.
Eng: List the employee number, name and salary of employees in
Dept. 50, in order of employee number.
Shan: for employee of dept(50) minfirst empno show(empno, name,
salary)
Expression 6.
Eng: Average salary of clerks.
Shan: average (salary of clerk)
Expression 7.
Eng: Number of different jobs held by employees in Dept.50
Shan: count job of employee of dept(50) condense
Expression 8.
Eng: List all the departments and the average salary of each.
Shan: for dept show(it, average(salary of its employee))
Expression 9.
Eng: Those departments in which the average employee salary is
less than 10,000.
Shan: dept where average(salary of its employee) < 10000
Expression 10.
Eng: The departments that employ more than ten clerks.
Shan: dept where count(its clerk > 10
MTC-00033297
From: John McGee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John McGee
14515 W Granite Valley Dr. #C 625
Sun City West, AZ 85375
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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: such as 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 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.
[[Page 30058]]
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,
John McGee
MTC-00033298
From: C. A., Jr. Rosenberger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. A., Jr. Rosenberger
149 East Side Dr. # 323
Concord, NH 03301
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
C. A. Rosenberger, Jr
MTC-00033299
From: Blaine R Conk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Blaine R Conk
2645 Redlands Drive
Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Blaine R Conk
MTC-00033300
From: Mark W. Alexander
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
Subject: Re: [LeapList]Microsoft Settlement
If you can figure out the proper way to send this to the judge
in the --civil-- suit, that's the place for it to go. It's
great, but it does not address the DOJ settlement. mwa
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Phil Barnett wrote:
I feel that the currently proposed settlement is inadequate and
an embarassment to justice and law abiding taxpayers everywhere.
Ordering Microsoft to buy their way into another monopoly by
having them donate proprietary operating systems to needy schools is
not punishment. It is simply telling them that it's ok to monopolize
yet another venue.
Will this billion dollars worth of ``charity''
displace real business in the commercial operating system world?
Will sales that would have gone to Microsoft's competitors be lost
because school districts around the U.S. will be waiting in line for
their free handout? Will this billion dollar fine actually
strengthen Microsoft? I believe it will if it is carried out as
currently proposed.
If you want to actually punish Microsoft for their illegal
activities, you should not do it by giving them a new market to take
over. Instead, you should punish them by strengthening the
competition that they have illegally gained monopolistic power over
and plundered.
I propose that any new Microsoft settlement to needy scools
include:
[[Page 30059]]
50% of the settlement into computer hardware only.
20% of the settlement into network infrastructure.
All computers purchased with this settlement money be installed
with non-proprietary Linux Open Source operating systems and
software.
30% of the settlement will be used for education of the support
personnel and teachers using these new open source operating
systems.
Linux is an excellent choice in Open Source operating systems.
It is stable, capable, powerful, consistant and as easy to
administer as any operating system that training is available for.
There are many good mainstream Linux distributions available at low
or no cost. Training and certification are available and should be
encouraged in the support and educational infrastructure.
Open Source operating systems have the benefit of being
upgradable at little or no cost for the foreseeable future. If the
schools to be helped are those with limited budgets, low upgrade
costs will be very important over the life of the hardware. Also,
Linux is more efficient with hardware and does not require the
rigorous hardware upgrade schedule that Microsoft operating system
upgrades require. This means the hardware purchased with this
settlement money will be viable years longer with Linux than it
would be with Microsoft's proprietary operating systems.
If the current settlement is carried out, in a few years the
schools with limited budgets will have obsolete operating system
software needing to be replaced with billions of dollars of public
money.
And, to whom will this upgrade money go? Microsoft.
That is not punishment. That is opportunity.
If you want to punish Microsoft and at the same time remove the
proprietary handcuffs that Microsoft has put on every Windows user,
teach our children how to use Linux.
LeapList mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/leaplist
Mark W. Alexander
[email protected]
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033301
From: William Huth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Huth
211 Cooks Landing Road
peach bottom, PA 17563
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
William J. Huth
MTC-00033302
From: James Friedrich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Friedrich
2301 E. Clifford Ave.
las vegas, Nv 89104-2140
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30060]]
submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District
Court without change.
Sincerely,
James A. Friedrich
MTC-00033303
From: Renata B. Hesse
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
2226 Pecan Drive
Yuba City, CA 95991-8432
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mr. George J. Jameson
MTC-00033304
From: Walter Sainio
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Sainio
6419 Monero Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Walter C. and Nan G. Sainio
MTC-00033305
From: mel fineman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mel fineman
20215 ne 10th place
miami, fl 33179
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30061]]
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 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,
mel fineman
MTC-00033306
From: John Weir
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Weir
2730 Lakeridge Shores West
Reno, NV 89509
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Weir
MTC-00033307
From: Gary Deitschman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Deitschman
1981 Susan Ave
Neenah, WI 54956
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Gary Deitschman
MTC-00033308
From: John Appel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Appel
186 23rd Ave SW
Largo, FL 33778
[[Page 30062]]
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John E. Appel
MTC-00033309
From: Rodney Int-Hout
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rodney Int-Hout
106 Dahlia Circle
Fairfield Bay, AR 72088-3708
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Rodney Int-Hout
MTC-00033311
From: Jerry Pausch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Pausch
P.O. Box 413
Leesburg, oh 45135
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 30063]]
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,
Jerry B. Pausch
MTC-00033312
From: Mark Meszar
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 11:53am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
I am concerned about the settlement issue that would strip the
Microsoft Internet Explorer browser from the Microsoft Windows
operating system. I spend a great deal of time online and have used
Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. The Navigator browser is
slower, more intrusive, less stable, and an inferior product in my
opinion. If Microsoft Windows did not come with Internet Explorer I
would have to spend hours downloading it over a slow dial-up
connection. I format my computer's hard drive fequently for testing
and to have to download the program over and over after each install
of Microsoft Windows would decrease my productivity. I urge you to
at the very LEAST allow Microsoft to include the option to install
the Internet Explorer browser off the Microsoft Windows CD
Sincerely,
Mark Meszar
4616 Woodhurst Dr.
Youngstown, OH 44515-3731
MTC-00033313
From: Richard Grant
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Grant
22933 Galva Ave.
Torrance, Ca 90505
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard Grant
MTC-00033314
From: janice gabbert
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
janice gabbert
115 w monument
dayton, oh 45402-3099
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
The following is a long ``form letter'' supplied by
CAGW, of which I am a member, and I have read it carefully AND AGREE
WITH ALL OF WHAT IS SAID BELOW:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
[[Page 30064]]
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,
janice j. gabbert
MTC-00033315
From: Elsie T. Childers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elsie T. Childers
8781 Rose Creek Rd
Nebo, Ky 42441-9766
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Elsie T. Childers
MTC-00033316
From: Robert Himmelberg
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Himmelberg
911 East Park Drive
Glasgow, Mo 65254
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
R.L. Himmelberg
MTC-00033317
From: Evald Carlson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evald Carlson
119 Oxbow Drive
Oxbow, ND 58047-5001
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30065]]
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 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,
Evald J. Carlson
MTC-00033318
From: Dean Willson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Willson
7748 E. Tanque Verde Ln.
Tucson , AZ 85715
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dean W. Willson
MTC-00033319
From: Margaret A. Kennedy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret A. Kennedy
202 Willow Run Rd.
Sneads Ferry, NC 28460
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Margaret A. Kennedy
MTC-00033320
From: Robert Nelson
[[Page 30066]]
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Please reconsider your stance against Microsoft!
American Antitrust Institute
2919 Ellicott Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington DC 20008-1022
Attention: Albert A. (``Bert'') Foer, President
Mr. Foer,
Your late actions in the Microsoft anti-trust case are contrary
to the interests of business owners, stockholders of all technical
stocks, and the American, as well as much of the international
public, as well as the economy of the United States, and is a threat
to technological innovation.
Your qualifications for membership are, from your site, as
follow (bold case is ours) : ``I have visited the AAI website
(www.antitrustinstitute.org) and reviewed its contents. I am in
general agreement with the philosophy represented by the AAI and
wish to be affiliated as a Friend. I will abide by the conditions of
membership as set forth on the website'' indicate the
appearance of your having little to no interest in hearing from
those who oppose your actions and views.
Most people in the data processing field oppose the view and
stance you have taken at this late date. We believe, and have reason
to believe, that the entire matter was begun my competitors who
charged more, delivered less. and under whose guidance the personal
computer and software would remain prohibitively expensive for the
average consumer. Microsoft has made software affordable,
dependable, and easily available. No company has absorbed as much
software piracy as Microsoft without prosecuting users, either.
The legal attacks and moves by certain competitors has resulted
in an either/or decision on the part of many Information Technology
Directors and Chief Information Officers. We know how to write
software, and (in my case) have been doing so since 1968. The
actions of Microsoft's competitors has already backfired as we have
continued to adopt as much IBM and Microsoft product as is possible,
and no longer use certain competing products from the companies who
brought this case.
Nearly all of the people with our philosophy are simply quietly
doing this with little to no fanfare. We do not post to hobby
bulletin boards. We do not spend a great deal of time in Microsoft's
defense beyond converting previous database products to either
Microsoft SQL Server or IBM's DB2.
We do not now, nor have we ever, worked for Microsoft or any of
its subsidiaries, and we own no more than 100 shares of their stock
among us. In other words, we have no personal stake in this other
than our desire to have affordable, cutting-edge, and stable
software for our business.
An area of investigation that needs more scrutiny is in the area
of targeting viruses to the Microsoft products. This occurs far too
often to be simple cases of hobbyists causing mischief, and is one
of the areas where we are gathering a much information as we can.
Finally, we are more than a little concerned about another
statement on your site--``A Counterweight to Conservative
Influence''--which indicates to us that your site is
politically-driven. If this is the case, we would like to inform you
that, according to a gay investment site, Microsoft is the third
most gal-friendly public company in the United States, after Disney
and American Express.
We ask that you reconsider your stance so that we may have this
yoke off of our economy, and so that Microsoft may continue to
innovate as if they were headquartered in a free country.
Warmest Regards,
Bob Nelson
Adventek, Inc. and for the majority of CIOs and data center
directors, whose company names will follow on their letterhead by
hardcopy.
cc: Microsoft, Inc.
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033321
From: Arthur Ives
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Ives
16 Lighthouse Way Dr.
Salem, SC 29676
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Arthur H. Ives
MTC-00033322
From: Daniel F. Betts
To: DOJ
Date: 1/24/02 4:33pm
Subject: Lawsuites et al
dear DOJ
As a consumer, citizen etc, can't these law suites stop. It is
dragging down the economy and it is purely being done for purposes
to hurt others, I am just sick of all that has gone on. The events
of the last year have nearly wiped me out financially and
emotionally. I am at my end!!
Daniel Betts
MTC-00033323
From: Charles E. Boonstra
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles E. Boonstra
2218 Lake Shore Drive
St. Joseph, MI 49085-1841
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost all taxpayers, including you, more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final
approval seems to me to be clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30067]]
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. I have no interest at all in
further enriching the legal beagles involved in this case.
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 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,
Charles E. Boonstra
MTC-00033324
From: Stanley R. Krier
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley R. Krier
175 Berlin Ave., Unit #64
Southington, CT 06489
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Stanley R. Krier
MTC-00033325
From: Steven Shepherd
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Steven Shepherd
14209--93rd Ave NE
Bothell, WA 98011-5147
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033326
From: Samuel Frankenfield
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samuel Frankenfield
7375 Hightower
Fort Worth, TX 76112-5812
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30068]]
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 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,
Samuel Lewis Frankenfield III
MTC-00033327
From: Nolan Swift
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nolan Swift
PO Box 09041/5006 S May St
Chicago, IL 60609
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Nolan G. Swift
MTC-00033328
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grete Koller
202 Spruce Court
Yorkville, IL 60560-9582
MTC-00033329
From: Frank Soldwedel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Soldwedel
1778 Rte. 9N
Lake George, NY 12845-5900
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30069]]
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
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,
Frank E. Soldwedel
MTC-00033332
From: Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it might concern,
I'm an Information Technologies Engineer, with more than 6 years
of experience in IT, now working as a Test Engineer in a Quality
Assurance team. I think that the proposed settlement in the
Microsoft Antitrust Case is a bad idea. Please reconsider your
position.
I have co-signed and I endorse the open letter that Mr. Dan
Kegel has posted on the Internet here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
Mr. Kegel points it nicely:
According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies
decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market
from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99).
The current proposed settlement, does not seek to unfetter
nothing. It is uncapable of terminating illegal monopoly practices.
It does not deny Microsoft Corp. the fruits of its statutory
violation. And it does not ensure that Microsoft Corp. will end its
current illegal practices. For example, some ways that could enforce
Microsoft Corp. to end its illegal monopolistic practices would be:
--Make open and public the documentation that specifies
Microsoft Corp.'s file formats, like MS-Word, MS-Excel... Make open
and public the specifications of actual and future file formats
(when available). This will serve to open the market to competing
products. The consumer will have a selection.
--Disclose MS-Windows API that will make possible for competing
products to use programs designed for MS-Windows. This way,
``MS-Windows compatible'' Operating Systems could be
presented as a real choice to the consummer.
--Mandate Microsoft Corp. to do not discriminate (in their
licenses or wherever) against competing technologies or products.
For example, nowadays, their ``licenses'' forbid to use
MS-Windows components in conjunction with Microsoft Corp's
technology competitors. Yes, with their licenses, you cannot use MS-
Windows Media without MS-Windows, when it is technically possible to
do so using the emulator ``WINE'' under Linux (quoting
their license: ``you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE
COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software.
``Publicly Available Software'' means each of (i) any
software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in
part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open
source software (e.g. Linux)'').
Well, there's more and in more depth at Mr. Kegel's website.
Yours sincerely,
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
Chapel Hill, NC 24514
QA Test Engineer,
IT Professional, Member of IEEE--Computer Society
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033333
From: dick allan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Come on you guys, this one from M$ doesn't cut it either. Since
when does the criminal get to call the remedy?
MTC-00033334
From: Jacqueline Hoernlein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jacqueline Hoernlein
4230 Shattuck Rd.
Saginaw, Mi 48603
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mrs. Jacqueline Hoernlein
MTC-00033335
From: David Olegar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
Restore competition to the software industry. Break up
Microsoft.
MTC-00033336
From: Guy Sewell
[[Page 30070]]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs,
I would like to express my dismay at the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I am particularly concerned over the lack of recognition
by the DOJ as to the importance of not-for-profit organizations to
the future of IT, and to the discrimination against not-for-profit
organizations in the proposed settlement.
Also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the MS
breakup remedy was not chosen. The company was found guilty of being
an illegal monopoly. The company has a obscene profit margin with no
significant competition in either the OS market or the office suite
market, how can this not be detrimental to consumers or competitors?
It has a greater % of total market than AT&T or Standard Oil
did. Diversity is a desirable trait in ecosystems, in societies, and
in commerce. Break up Microsoft and make the the units compete in a
free and level market place.
Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D.
President
Sewell Environmental Associates, LLC
MTC-00033337
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11pm
Subject: my personal view on the ms vs doj case
Dear Sir / Madam
On the face of it, it would appear that my view on this matter
is irrelevant; I am after all a British citizen living in New
Zealand, half-a-world away from your great nation.
However your decision in the matter of the Microsoft will affect
my life deeply. I am a senior IT professional, working with
Microsoft products daily. In short my very living will be affected
by your decision. The world, and I await with baited breath what
impact this will have on our lives.
It is under such circumstances that I offer my humble opinion:
My summarisation is this, that it would appear to be a decision of
the issue of ``freedom'', how much ``freedom''
should a corporation be allowed vs. the freedom of the public to
enjoy goods and services at a competitive price. In fact it would
appear that the entire issue is summed in the above fashion. Most
people today believe that ``I can do whatever I like, pursuing
what ever goals I determine to be to my best interest, SO LONG as I
respect the rights of others and do not impinge on their right to do
the same.'' It is that above view, which I find utterly
abhorrent. I propose that the belief that your great forefathers
held such a view is a lie, and a dangerous lie designed to steal
your freedom from right underneath you.
If this issue (and all the similar arguments like it) are
decided based on the merits of who has ``which freedoms to do
what'', then the end result will be incorrect and self-serving,
no matter how noble your aims.
If entities such as governments, businesses, organisations and
ultimately people, really believe that they have a
``right'' to follow their own desires, without hurting
others, they will, given enough time, destroy everything around
themselves.
Like a horrible Midas curse, it is not possible to gain your own
goals without affecting others.
The pursuit of self, at all costs is disgusting. The dangerous
lie that it is possible to peruse self, without impinging on others
is a falsehood. No man is an island, all decisions involve costs.
Any decision based on the ``faintly'' held notion that it
is permissible to pursue your own goals as ``long as you don't
hurt others'' will produce a result that is a real evil in
itself.
I urge you to consider your forefather's real aims and goals in
promoting liberty, not one of ``SELF'' but rather
``OTHERS FIRST''.
If you are proud of your heritage you will put others first, and
demand of both the plaintiff and the defendant that they show how
they are putting ``OTHERS FIRST''.
The result will be a judgement based on the activities of both
parties, designed to show whether self-interest or others-interest
was the goal. It is obvious then that by upholding the freedoms of
both parties, both will suffer equally. If both parties are forced
to place the other party first, the result will be a correct
settlement, designed to uphold the other's rights. If the
``people'' are willing to allow Microsoft the right to
``practice business'', then Microsoft must allow the
``people'' the right to make their own livings. (I imagine
the issue of forcing OEM vendors to pre-install windows will be
shown for the foul business practice it is, self-serving and
abhorrent.)
Self-first always results in loss of freedom, never the
promotion of freedom. It is your own forefathers whom taught their
children to follow the ways of the man that first promoted the idea
of ``Others First'', en-masse to the public. He was Jesus.
Parents often paraphrase his teachings like this ``Treat others
as you would have them treat you.'' He actually said,
``Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and
all your soul. And love others as yourself.''
May the Lord grant you the wisdom of Solomon as you consider
such a weighty decision.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Kind regards,
Colin Saunders
PO Box 98817
South Auckland Mail Centre
New Zealand
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033338
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
D.Landis Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00033339
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00033340
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
[[Page 30071]]
Sincerely,
Tricia Murphy
147 Suburban Terrace
Stratford, NJ 08084-1413
MTC-00033343
From: Andy Colligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
The proponents of an anti-trust suit should have but one goal:
The limitation or reduction of a trust. Cementing a trust's hold on
a market is the antithesis of that goal.
Please do not allow this settlement to become a travesty of
justice and freedom. Please do not expand Microsoft's monopoly
though this settlement.
Speaking as someone who has watched the Internet grow, explode,
and begin to mature, I would like to be able to see it become a
place that allows freedom of expression and choice. Speaking as
someone who has seen what computers are truly capable of, I implore
you to allow the same freedoms onto the desktop. Customers should be
allowed to choose how they want to interact with their computer.
Currently, Microsoft does not allow that choice. If they have any
say in the matter, they never will. However, you do have the power
to change how Microsoft does business. I ask you to exercise that
power. You may find this message to be silly, but the outcome of
this case is anything but.
Andy Colligan
Email: [email protected]
MTC-00033344
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
please , in the public interest, proceed with the settlement
that is so badly needed for the U.S. economy and in the interest of
the public that is surely weary of continued competiveness. please ,
let us get back to sanity. thank you sincerely Chloe murdock
chloeckm@ Aol.com
MTC-00033345
From: John Holstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is an extremely bad idea.
Microsoft has ridden rough-shod over the Computer and Computer
Software Industry for too long.
Out of the hundreds of complaints I could complain about
concerning Microsoft, from their inability to provide a secure OS,
out of the box, to their lack of effort in patching existing
software for known bugs, the basis of my ``problem'' with
the way they do things is their effort to set and/or change existing
standards. These standard practices (RFC's ``Request for
Comments'') that computer professionals go by when installing,
administrating and developing new software are the basis for our
everyday lives. Microsoft has the audacity to try and change these
standards to suit their needs, at any given time, seemingly without
regard to their customers ``computer well being''.
Microsoft will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of people
that don't know any better. We need to help protect the end users
that don't have the ability to understand the ``behind the
scenes'' actions that take place. I know, I understand, and I
am not a fan of what Microsoft has done to the industry. Allowing it
to continue will only hinder future developments.
John Holstein,
Cotse Helpdesk/Support
MTC-00033346
From: csm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
As someone who uses Microsoft products as part of his job, and
who also uses products at home that compete with Microsoft products,
I would like to offer the following comments and suggestions
regarding the ``proposed final judgment in United States v.
Microsoft''.
In general the settlement described in the ``proposed final
judgment'' tries to prevent the anti-competitive behaviors that
Microsoft has used in the area of (what the settlement calls)
``Middleware Products'' intended for user interaction with
the Internet. I feel it focuses a little too narrowly on
``Internet-centric'' programs such as browsers and E-mail
agents. In fact, there are probably lost opportunities here for
correcting anti-competitive behaviors in the areas of operating
systems, software development tools and what is euphemistically
called ``office productivity'' software (such as
Microsoft's Office suite of programs).
While these types of programs may seem more distant from the
Internet than web browsers, etc., in point of fact almost all of
them are also being upgraded to interoperate with Internet APIs and
remote services. I wish this had been examined in more detail.
However, taking the proposed settlement as written, there are
several changes in wording that I believe would expand the scope of
what is being required where it is overly narrow. In particular,
under Section III.A.2 (hardware licensing):
1. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System; should be amended
to:
2. shipping a Personal Computer with one or more bootable non-
Microsoft Operating System(s) either instead of or in addition to
any Windows Operating System Product; to ensure that not only can
Microsoft not retaliate against a computer hardware vendor who ships
a Personal Computer that dual boots Windows and some non-Microsoft
Operating System, but also that it cannot retaliate against a vendor
who ships a separate line of Personal Computers without Windows at
all, in addition to also shipping Personal Computers that do have
Windows installed.
This is particularly important to growth of the (Open Source)
Linux Operating System as an option for businesses.
In section III.D, in addition to ``the APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate
with a Windows Operating System Product'', the internal formats
of disk files created by Microsoft products need to be cited as a
necessary part of the ``related Documentation'',
particularly for the Microsoft Office products.
Microsoft Office is a pillar of the current desktop monopoly. It
is reasonable to ask that ``flat'' files produced by Word,
Excel and other components of the Microsoft Office suite have their
internal layout and format fully documented so that non-Microsoft
products can interoperate with them with full knowledge of any
planned changes from one version of Microsoft Office to the next.
This is important because these files are routinely exchanged via E-
mail and other methods of information exchange over the Internet
(for instance, many company Personnel departments now require
resumes and job applications to be E-mailed in Microsoft Word
format). The exceptions to this would be the database file formats
of Microsoft Access (one part of the Microsoft Office suite) and
Microsoft SQL Server (a separate product), which should rightfully
remain proprietary knowledge.
Section III.J.1 needs to be tightened to provide outside
verification that any denial of disclosure because it ``would
compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication
systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or
enforcement criteria'' is justified by the facts of the matter.
Also III.J.2 appears to provide a loophole for allowing Microsoft to
refuse information to Open Source developers, since it has already
disparaged the ``authenticity and viability of'' the Open
Source model of doing business.
This loophole must be closed, since Open Source software is one
of the few surviving competitors that Microsoft products face
currently.
Definition VI.K.1 should include Microsoft Office among the list
of ``Microsoft Middleware Products'', again because it is
so routinely used in document exchange across the Internet.
Thank you,
Paul Connelly
P.O. Box 290
Oakham, MA 01068-0290
(US Citizen)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033347
From: Donald Rossell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Rossell
1331 Ridgeview Ave Dayton, oh 45409
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
[[Page 30072]]
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald Rossell
MTC-00033348
From: dnp607(a)pacbell.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing under the Tunney Act concerning the proposed
Microsoft Settlement (United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No.
98-1232).
I believe the settlement is unfair, as it will not serve to end
Microsoft's unlawful conduct, and does not adequately penalize
Microsoft for it's unlawful conduct. I have co-signed a petition
which details my position in greater detail, and am writing this to
officially note my opinion as allowed by the Tunney Act.
Thank you very much,
Dan Peknik
MTC-00033349
From: Carlos Santellanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
The proposed settlement is INSULTING to the word justice.
Nothing is going to change with such a settlement, REAL punishment
must be done this time or else the WHOLE computer industry will
suffer.
If only we'd stop trying to be happy we could have a pretty good
time.
Edith Warton
NOTICE--This message contains information intended only for
the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential
and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy
or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
message in error please disregard.
MTC-00033350
From: Bill Vlahos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
I believe that Microsoft has clearly and unlawfully abused its
monopoly for many years and am dismayed that the
``remedies'' discussed so far are neither appropriate nor
will be effective in either punishing or changing Microsoft's
behavior.
Assuming that Microsoft is guilty, which has been proven and re-
affirmed in court, then not only should their behavior change but
they should be punished. There are numerous products and companies
which no longer exist because Microsoft eliminated them.
Let me suggest a solution that would not only meet the goals of
the anti-trust case, be relatively easily achieved, but actually
would effect a change.
1. Make the file formats for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint open so
that other companies can make competitive products which would
transparently interoperate with Microsoft's products.
2. Prohibit the Government (U.S. and States) from purchasing any
Microsoft products for a period of time based on how long Microsoft
abused their monopoly. This would punish Microsoft for past abuses
while at the same time provide a waiting market for competing
products.
These remedies would certainly hurt Microsoft which is
appropriate. They also would stimulate competition which would be
good for consumers.
Bill Vlahos
[email protected]
MTC-00033351
From: chris wolske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice Representative,
I would like to respond to the Proposed Final Judgement to U.S.
v. Microsoft. There are many aspects of this ruling which I find
disturbing, including the following:
In section III (Prohibited Conduct), section A.2. reads:
[A.2] ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both
a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System;
or''
this interpretation ignores systems shipped without a Microsoft
operating system, including computers that ship with only Linux or
other Free (FSF) software with Windows compatability software
included. An alternative may read as follows: ``
shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System
Product; or ...''
Section VI (Definitions), section U, defines the following:
``Windows Operating System Product'' means the
software code (as opposed to source code) distributed commercially
by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as Windows 2000
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn''
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion.
this focuses narrowly on the a subset of the operating systems
offered by Microsoft and may be better represented by:
``Windows Operating System Product'' means any
software or firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that
is capable of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs, including
without exclusion Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home,
Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE,
PocketPC 2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the
products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades,
bug fixes, service packs, etc.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards,
Christopher Wolske
MTC-00033352
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
[[Page 30073]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Christine Dowd
1835 Portola Road
wOODSIDE, CA 94062
MTC-00033353
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is inappropriate. Instead of being a
punishment for illegal behavior, it appears to be a marketing plan
designed by Microsoft. The costs to Microsoft of distributing their
software to schools is very small compared to the retail
``value'' of each package. Even using the full retail
``value'' of the donated software the total cost is very
small compared to the economic damage of Microsoft's monopolistic
business practices.
The proposed settlement does nothing to curb Microsoft's future
monopoly, and in fact it actually promotes Microsoft's monopoly. By
donating software to schools, Microsoft will be advertising in the
schools. I believe Microsoft will be very happy with the proposed
terms because they already spend billions of dollars on advertising.
Apple has for years promoted their corporation by donating computers
and software to schools. Now Microsoft will be required to donate
computes and software to schools, even though such an action would
probably be illegal without a court order. Such a donation could be
an attempt to eliminate competition in the school market.
When considering the severity of the penalty we should remember
the severity of the crimes committed. Microsoft has for years bound
large computer sellers to agreements which made it very difficult or
costly to provide other operating system software on their
computers. The terms of these agreements have required computer
sellers to pay Microsoft for each computer sold, regardless of what
operating system was installed on the system. In addition, Microsoft
has prohibited installation of ``dual boot'' systems which
would give people a choice of operating system. Imagine the
absurdity of, for example, Del Monte receiving a payment for every
can of corn sold, regardless of who actually made the can of corn.
Perhaps most egregious is what Microsoft did to DR-DOS, an
early competitor. Microsoft deliberately sabotaged DR-DOS by
checking to see if DR-DOS was running and then creating false
and misleading error messages. This gave the impression that
DR-DOS was somehow incompatible. In fact DR-DOS was a
superior product. Microsoft committed industrial sabotage. Finally
Microsoft displayed an attitude of contempt for the judicial system
during the trial. They introduced obviously doctored video tapes.
When a crime results in ill gotten gains, it is appropriate to
make the penalty large enough to remove the economic gain from the
crime and then to further increase the penalty to deter future
criminal behavior and to compensate society for the damage caused by
the crime. In this case the damage has been very large. Microsoft
has positioned itself as the owner of the software roads of the
21'st century. No society would tolerate a single company owning all
the roads in a country, and we should not tolerate having a single
company control all of desktop software. Therefore it seems more
appropriate to require Microsoft to donate all the Windows operating
system software, including any future releases, to the public
domain. Microsoft should also be required to compensate owners of
patented and copyrighted software contained in Windows. Microsoft
has a large amount of cash available and they should be able to
provide compensation without any difficulties. Microsoft should also
be prohibited from introducing any competitors to their Windows
operating system and office software.
Being wealthy is no excuse for committing crimes.
Bruce Ramsay Software Engineer
MTC-00033354
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jay Talsma
534 Del Vista Dr.
Bloomington, IL 61704-7654
MTC-00033355
From: Dawney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 24, 2002
Dear U.S. Department of Justice:
As a member of the public, I would like to add my comments on
the Microsoft Settlement. If I understand correctly, under the
Tunney Act I may submit comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement
documentation. In order to accurately convey my opinion, I must
first clarify that I respectfully but strongly disagree that
Microsoft has had or does have a monopoly in the web browser
industry. Our local news reported recently that our only local
telephone utility provider is planning to share our personal
information, including to whom we call and how long we stay on the
phone line. Needless to say, the customers are not happy about this
and are trying to get an opt-out option. But if we can't, and it is
legal for the company to share our private information against our
will, then we have no alternative but to continue using this utility
company or to discontinue the use of our local phone service because
there is no other option. THAT is a monopoly.
I am easily able to obtain and use Netscape or Internet Explorer
or AOL if I so choose. These three web browsers are easy to find and
affordable if not free. Microsoft has developed a successful
operating system (and application software) that has revolutionized
(actually introduced) the public to the ever-increasing benefits of
personal computer use. It was not long ago that the market of
computer users was a minute group limited to the isolation and
dullness of DOS. The creation of Windows has given wings to the
minds of developers and end users. Microsoft has cultivated its
Windows operating system with improvements such as Internet Explorer
that are a benefit to the consumer.
My perspective is that of great appreciation for successful
development and true competition. Microsoft has no more channels of
opportunity than any other company as far as marketing and
distribution, unless they've created their own, which is productive
innovation. If Microsoft is successful in distributing knowledge
about its products and creating accessibility, it is commendable and
a plus for consumers. I've read that it would be too expensive for
Netscape to develop its own competing operating system. Too
expensive for whom? Netscape? Consumers? If having a unique
operating system is a desire of Netscape in the development of its
product, then it ought to gather investors, developers, etc., to
enable itself to achieve these developmental goals. Isn't that what
most companies have to do? Microsoft successfully built and
developed its concepts and products, relationships and consumer
trust from ground up.
They didn't try to jump on the coat tails of a larger company.
Too expensive for consumers? If my limited knowledge of competition
serves me correctly, then by Netscape building their own code,
products
[[Page 30074]]
and relationships, it would actually facilitate true competition and
even reduce prices (for consumers). With that said, out of respect
for the authority of the Department of Justice to pass judgment on
whether or not it feels the Sherman Act has been violated, I
acknowledge the decisions that have led to the Microsoft Settlement.
While I do not agree with much of the settlement language, it takes
two sides to reach an agreement. With two sides agreeing to a set of
terms and to be bound by the settlement, I agree that a swift close
to this matter would be of benefit both financially and mentally to
the public. I have been wanting to write this letter for over
several weeks but have felt so strongly on some parts of this case,
that I wanted to make sure and re-read the available public
documents, then write with a clear mind and ``cool jets''
so to speak. My main concern when reading the complaints and
settlement information is that of wanting reasonable justice and
closure. I have been concerned foreseeing that Microsoft's
competition would not honor the authority of the DOJ nor the binding
settlement language; but rather, they would continue to pursue
litigation after litigation. And as of January 23, 2002,
unfortunately this foresight seems to be correct in reading that AOL
is again suing Microsoft.
I believe that it is in the best interest of the public and our
economy to strictly and completely enforce all terms of the
settlement, and then ensure that Microsoft's competition is not
allowed to make a mockery of the system by misinterpreting their
role (if any) in the agreement. This kind of abuse would be a waste
of money and time (which would stifle would-be creative developments
for consumers). I also believe it would be detrimental to consumer
confidence.
The decisions have been made. Let the DOJ and Microsoft carry
out their parts of the agreement. Let the competing companies build
their products to the best of their available resources (as with all
businesses). Then let the consumers be free to choose their products
and services.
Thank you greatly for your time.
Dawn Reagan
1765 Tullis Dr.
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815
(208) 665-2317
[email protected]
MTC-00033356
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jean Payne
501 Fairway Trail Springfield, TN 37172-4013
MTC-00033362
From: Bradley Greger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00033363
From: Jonathan D. Nolen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I strongly disapprove of the proposed final judgment in the
Microsoft Case. As written, it fails to achieve any meaningful
benefit for the software-using public. It is insufficient to curb
Microsoft's use of predatory and anti-competitive tactics, which
have been working against the public good for two decades. Likewise,
it fails to redress the damage that Microsoft has done to the
software industry and the computer-using public at large during
their reign as monopolists.
Please see Dan Kegel's (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html)
comments for further detail on the shortcomings of the proposed
settlement.
Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Nolen
Jonathan D. Nolen
Santa Barbara, CA
mail: [email protected]
MTC-00033364
From: Ben Lachman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement as it stands does nothing to change the way
microsoft will act in the future. much greater action should be
taken.
Ben Lachman
Athens, Ohio
[email protected]
[email protected]
(740)592-6430
MTC-00033365
From: David Lawler
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lawler
333 E Ontario #4412b
Chicago, IL 60611
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
David Lawler
MTC-00033366
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: AOL LAWSUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT
Sir:
I think in my opinion AOL should now spend time to enhance and
innovate their system rather than spending time in the courtroom. It
is just the right thing to do. Time to move on AOL you are hurting
the economy of the United States of America.
MTC-00033368
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Betty Johnson
9102 Hyde Park Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2327
[[Page 30075]]
MTC-00033370
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
For over a year I used Netscape Navigator. Eventually, I decided
to try other browsers--Internet Explorer and
Opera--because I was becoming frustrated with Navigator's lack
of features. I was much happier with Explorer's flexibility and
features, so I removed Navigator. All three programs were free to
the public, but one offered more and satisfied me more than the
other. I also bought a Ford Bronco several years ago. I was not
satisfied with the stereo that came ``bundled'' with it,
so I shopped around and bought a better stereo to replace it. The
stereo was much more costly and troublesome to replace than Internet
Explorer is to replace. Cars come bundled with stereos and tires and
I can buy different tires and stereos for my car, just as a computer
can come with Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, etc., but I am still free to
choose whatever web browser or other software I prefer with the
operating system of my choice.
Please don't take away our rights or responsibility to choose
and decide for ourselves what products we will use. Politicians harm
consumers when they give unfair advantage to producers who cannot
compete with companies that create better products. Allowing
politicians to interfere with the marketplace and consumer choice is
an uncompetitive and unconstitutional practice.
Sincerely,
Eugene Fortain
5707 Los Alamos Ct.
Santa Rosa, CA 95409
MTC-00033371
From: Bob Boothby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Is further litigation on the Microsoft antitrust case going to
get us out of this recession? I don't think so! I was hopeful when
Microsoft and the Department of Justice reached a settlement back in
November, but now it looks to me like we are in for another round of
fruitless litigation. We have nine state Attorney Generals playing
politics and AOL is back in court with an old complaint that was
proven to be unfounded in the current DOJ lawsuit.
I, Robert, am a Software Engineer. I worked for RCA Computer
Systems Division in the 1960s and Hewlett-Packard from the early
1970s to the present. From personal experience I can tell you that
the Netscape browser lost its dominant position because it was
defect-ridden and its performance was miserable. The Netscape
browser still has a near monopoly on UNIX workstations and AOL Time
Warner & Sun Microsystems still deliver a defect-ridden browser
with miserable performance to that market.
Microsoft has agreed not to go after computer companies who ship
software that competes with anything in its operating system.
Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against software or
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes
with Windows or that run on software that competes with Windows.
What else is expected of Microsoft? Let's move on. Let's put an
end to the litigation!
Sincerely,
signed: Iku Boothby
Iku Boothby
signed: Robert Boothby
Robert Boothby
MTC-00033374
From: John E Pillow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I think the settlement is not good. It lets Microsoft continue
to control the marketplace.
Thanks
John E Pillow
MTC-00033377
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Carole Hill
233 Jackson Circle
Louisville, CO 80027-1630
MTC-00033378
From: Bill Rodgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I find the behaviour of AOL appauling. It seems that AOL are
more intent to be seen as a successful court litigator than as a
company that would provide quality software to the public. They
can't compete with expertise and quality products so they seem to
want to ``knock'' the industry standard down to their own
level. This will do nothing for the advancement of technology and
the benefits that can have to consumers. It is time AOL were given a
clear message that they either start to get their software
development act together and contribute to the development of users
computing experience or they get out of the game.
Bill Rodgers
Newcastle, Australia
MTC-00033379
From: gani delos santos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
proposed settlement is bad idea
MTC-00033380
From: gregTHOMY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08pm
Subject: MS BS proposal
I totally DISAGREE w/ MS's proposed settlement for their illegal
activity.
Chop em up!
Thank you.
gregTHOMY
PS: It is increasingly difficult to AVOID using this monopoly's
products...this would be ok in communist china but not America!!!
MTC-00033381
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09pm
Subject:
A right to use It is difficult describe how I fell about the
antitrust case against microsoft. I am unsure at this time how this
email will be received. I am a 30 year old Information Technology
and Telecommunications engineer working in South Australia, I have
been involved with computers and computing since I was 15 years old,
so I have 30 years experience dealing with computing issues and
operating system.
I am unsure if the American judicial system is allowed to
consider opinions from out side of the USA. However, when you talk
about the computer industry and partially Microsoft any anti-trust
suit is not just important to Americans it has far reaching effects
all around the world.
Software defies conventional trade boundaries, a new piece of
software can be all over the world in a matter of weeks and be used
by billions of computer businesses and home users in this time. What
Microsoft has accomplished in it's time as the major operating
system is develop the computer platform to a stage where anyone in
the world can use it and use it effectively.
But it has done this at a cost. The first PC I acquired was an
Amstrad 286 at the time windows was not even an OS and DOS was king.
Thousands of companies produced word processing programs land other
utilities and the consumer was able to talk with their wallets. If a
piece of software was no good then they migrated to another and
never used that software again.
This is the way it was in the beginning. The free market at it's
best. Mac had a market dominance, it's OS and windows type platform
was the easiest for all users to use. A large number of users used
the mac platform instead of the PC as the PC OS was difficult to
use. Then along came windows. Windows was produced to compete
against the Mac OS which made Mac's one of the
[[Page 30076]]
most sold computer systems there was. Windows copied a lot of the
Mac features and low an behold a Graphical user interface was
available for the IBM PC. Real competition began in the PC market.
The combination of the IBM PC and the Microsoft windows product
won out over the Mac. Not because it was the better of the two
systems they were both pretty much the same it's just the IBM PC's
were cheaper then Macs and thus market forces won the day. Microsoft
became the main OS of today. This wasn't a problem as Windows used
DOS as the basis for it's OS and all the DOS software companies
could easily port their packages to the windows format. But
microsoft wanted more, recognizing their clear advantage due to
there financial, market and marketing dominance they started to
develop the peripheral programs, borrowing ideas from these other
companies and going with the market trend.
The Microsoft OS today could no longer strictly be called an OS.
The operating system of a computer controls the interface between
the human and the computer components and allows programs to talk
and control these components in a managed manner.
Microsoft dose this and so it in a reasonable manner. But it a
lot includes programs which load automatically without the user
asking. And as things like word programs, net surfing programs,
picture editing programs are freely available why go out and by the
other superior programs as well the ones we have may not be the best
but they will do. By allowing microsoft to continue to add programs
to there OS that do not have anything to do with the OS you
perpetuate the destruction of superior software and operations
during our time. Microsoft is holding the world in a computing
stasis, by not allowing the best program to be presented to the
consumer, developments are lost and our pool of knowledge shrinks.
At this time microsoft has dominance of the world computer
market. They control 99% of the worlds computers. Their software has
proven time and time again that it is not the best, but it is
adequate and why by the better stuff if the stuff I have works. I
have had several programs that I love to use of the years become
useless because microsoft change small parts of it's code to make it
more difficult for other programs to run under windows. Microsoft at
the issuing of a new OS can decided that the world has to change to
suit it's vision. In actual fact when you think about it Microsoft
has more power then the US government and the US court systems.
Microsoft can make changes that effect the world in radical and
dramatic ways. They can broaden or shrink the differences between
the haves and the have not. This gives them a massive amount of
power and ultimate power corrupts.
The microsoft solution is a difficult one and I do not envy you.
The split up of microsoft will be a blow to the company no doubt.
But, I believe they said that there development divisions (those
that produce office and Internet Explorer) would not be able to work
as efficiently as they do now when they are connected to the OS side
of things. This is definitely true ! However, isn't this what all
other companies have to put up with. Microsoft limited access to
their software interfaces to external companies. Meaning that the
internal software development teams have an unfair advantage when it
comes to developing software as they can use the full set of
microsoft OS tools, while other companies can only deal with half
the OS tools or less.
If you can do nothing else you should at least include in the
settlement that MS must release the full Software and interface
specs to the MS Windows OS to allow others to compete on a more
level playing field.
Yours
Chris Evans
MTC-00033382
From: justin delos santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/24/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00033383
From: Doug Schafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement. It does not
take into account Microsoft's past avoidance of the intent of the
consent decree. It should be assumed Microsoft will act in bad faith
as they have in the past. If this assumption is made, the proposed
settlement easily allows Microsoft to continue monopolistic
practices that will cause long-term damage to this country.
To allow free-market forces to reign, Microsoft cannot be
allowed to turn what is currently a public resource (the internet)
into its private tool. This would be akin to a company subtly
modifying all the on and off ramps of the federal highway system so
that only company-approved vehicles could use them. Competitors must
be able to interoperate with, and replace components of, Microsoft
operating systems. This requires that the government prevent Microft
from blocking this access via legal or tecnical means. The proposed
final jugdement falls far short of this.
Sincerely,
Doug Schafer 5720 Ridgebrook
Drive
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
818.444.2356
MTC-00033384
From: Danny Delos Santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/24/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
MTC-00033385
From: William R. Hutchins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William R. Hutchins
5605 Brisbane Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-9689
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to support the revised proposed Final Judgment in
the US. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my
fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and final approval is
clearly in the public interest.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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,such as 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 continued 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 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,
[[Page 30077]]
William R. Hutchins
MTC-00033386
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dale Weckbacher
4116 N. 72nd Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85033-3151
MTC-00033387
From: Cerrise W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18pm
January 25, 2002
To whom it may concern at the Department of Justice, I am
opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial.
I am a victim (as are you) of shameless abuse by the Microsoft
corporation. If I do something that is against the law, I will be
punished. This deterrent is the foundation of our justice system. If
I live in some parts of the country, and I break the law (any law)
three times, I will go to prison. There can be no exceptions.
I do not expect to have more liberty than anyone else in this
country. I also do not support any judgement in which the judicial
system awards one person or entity more liberty than any other
person or entity. This is discrimination.
With the Proposed Final Judgement in this case, you will be
making the following statement true: ``I (a citizen of the
United States of America) do not own or operate a powerful monopoly,
therefore I would be punished for breaking the law, even though the
owners and administrators of a powerful monopoly can knowingly and
gratuitously disregard the law and not only escape punishment, but
actually profit from their many and brutal crimes.'' Note: I
feel that invading my privacy for the purposes of exploitation;
actively denying me or anyone the opportunity to compete
economically-- enforcing a monopoly; and interfering with my
constitutional rights in any way, are brutal and unforgivable
crimes, which should be severely punished.
Please do not discriminate against me by approving the Proposed
Final Judgement; which lacks any punishment whatsoever for
undeniably heinous and illegal acts by the Microsoft corporation.
I (and every other citizen of the U.S.) have been exploited and
abused by the Microsoft corporation, therefore I ask that you do
more than shake your finger at them. They are undeniably guilty of
very serious crimes against the American people. They are
responsible for what amounts to information terrorism. Please do not
encourage them to do it again and ruthlessly, by not punishing them.
If you approve the Proposed Final Judgement; you will be giving
away my rights to a corporation, in the interest of money. I will be
apalled, ashamed, and even afraid to live in a country where the law
can be so blatantly ignored.
Sincerely,
Cerrise Weiblen
Freelance XA
1559 Taft Court
Louisville, CO 80027
MTC-00033388
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jack Brady
3400 Cortez St.
West Covina, CA 91791
MTC-00033389
From: Deborah Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21pm
Subject: comments on emasculating anti-trust suits
When Microsoft Word shut down my entire computer in the spring
of 2000, and corrupted--almost beyond retrievability--my
Master's thesis--I rejoiced that the far-superior WordPerfect
might NOT be put out of business by the Microsoft monopoly, if only
the DOJ might prevail Now, the *new* DOJ is suggesting a
``punishment'' of placing this software with huge numbers
of K-12 kids?
That is like giving (bad) drugs away for free. I note that
*during* settlement negotiations, Microsoft shipped out a Windows XP
product that will shut down users'' *entire* machines--and
all other applications--if the Microsoft goes without
activation beyond a set date
I also note that *since* the DOJ ``settlement'',
Microsoft has (1) had the audacity to refuse FBI requests to Email
notice of security problems in its software *found* not by Microsoft
but by an independent watchdog; and (2) now admits that it
suppressed information on a legal brief by failing to disclose
lobbying of Congress in connection with your anti-trust suit.
Why are these wealthy monoipolists continually hiding
information and thumbing their collective noses at our
administration-- without any apparent consequences? As a law
student at Rutgers, I am looking forward to seeing an ultimate anti-
trust victory by the states which bravely refused to be co-opted
into DOJ's settlement.
I hope you will make the right decisions for a *true* capitalist
democracy and prove those pundits wrong who point to the proposed
DOJ settlement as proof that Microsoft campaign money bought the
same level of power in this administration as had Enron... This is
your opportunity prove us wrong, and avoid making a desperately bad
settlement even more embarrassing.
Sinceley,
Deborah Alexander
75 Hillcrest Road
Warren, NJ 07059
MTC-00033390
From: James Puckett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sir or Madame,
Please do NOT move forward with the proposed Microsoft antitrust
settlement. In its current form, the settlement proposed by the
Department of Justice will do little to break Microsoft's monopoly.
By only restricting Microsoft's behavior toward other commercial
entities, you restrict Microsoft's behavior toward a group of
companies it has already conquered and will have little trouble
continuing to dominate.
Open Source and Free software are the only real competition that
Microsoft has left in this world; and because that work is non
profit, developers of said software will receive no protection in
your proposed settlement. Given free reign to attack Open-Source and
Free software, Microsoft will flex all the muscle it can to destroy
products like Apache, Samba, Linux, and anything else that Steve
Ballmer and Bill Gates feel threatens their company's monopoly.
You MUST move to an alternate remedy. First, Microsoft should be
split, just as judge Jackson recommended, so that the Office and
Windows monopolies can no longer be used to strongarm users,
vendors, and OEMs toward both products. Second, Microsoft most open
the workings of their APIs and networking protocols so that they
cannot constantly work to shut out others in such simple areas as
file sharing and network domains.
Please do no sell out the future of computing, the internet, and
who knows what else to Microsoft. Microsoft's guilt and
[[Page 30078]]
arrogance are obvious in this case, and if a real punishment is not
issued, the Microsoft monopoly will only get worse, and will be
abused even more.
America needs you. Stop Microsoft now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
James Puckett
12010 Waterside View Drive
Apartment 34
Reston, VA 20194
MTC-00033391
From: john campisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
There is an opportunity at this juncture to demonstrate that the
Laws of the Land are enforced and fairly applied regardless of
monetary or political clout. There has been a determination of
violation of the antitrust statutes by Microsoft. A remedy must be
imposed that is significant and serves to correct the market
imbalance caused by the violation. Due to the advanced stage of
market domination achieved through monopolistic practices, it is
imperative that remedies must be focused on opening and leveling the
playing field. Such remedies must be continuing and monitored for
effectiveness and should not be restricted to one time financial
penalties (no matter how large).
It is clear that a meaningful remedy will have similar aspects
as affirmative action. Effectively, it is necessary for Microsoft to
be put at a disadvantage to its competitors until sufficient balance
in the market is achieved for open and fair competition to succeed.
Aspects to consider include:
1. Limitation of the practice of the bundling of software with
hardware purchases to allow consumer choice without incurring cost
penalties.
2. Ensuring that the details of the structure of the Microsoft
operating system and industry standard application file structure is
made available to all application developers to equal extent.
3. Requiring Microsoft to provide application programming
interfaces to its operating system for use by application developers
of all types.
MTC-00033392
From: Jon V. Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the United State Department of Justice:
I would like to comment (via the Tunney Act) on the proposed
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am strongly opposed to
the proposed settlement as it does absolutely nothing to address
Microsoft's violations of antitrust laws--it only prohibits
them from abusing these laws in the future, and even that is
questionable. If an organization engages in illegal activity,
benefits from this activity and then receives as a
``punishment'' instructions that they can no longer engage
in illegal activity, they have still benefited without any
consequences. This is not justice--not for the victims of their
abuses and not for the public which the U.S. Department of Justice
should be representing.
Microsoft has been clearly found guilty of abusing their
monopoly. Monopolies, and the lack of competition that they produce,
stifle innovation and result in lower quality products. The public
now suffers the consequences of this as they have no choice in
desktop software, are forced to upgrade and are stuck with whatever
products Microsoft produces (along with their inherent quality and
security issues). At the same time, Microsoft has had no incentive
to address quality and security issues because they have a lock on
the market.
For the benefit of the public, I encourage you to rework the
proposed settlement for a more fitting punishment for Microsoft's
violation of U.S. antitrust laws and for a more fair desktop
software market.
Technology works well when independent standards are created,
clearly defined and strictly followed. Every vendor has an equal
opportunity to follow and implement the standards with their best
effort. When this happens, the public can decide for themselves
which product they like best and this results in a healthy
assortment of products and companies to choose from. This philosophy
has worked well in many areas of technology, particularly in
hardware, where we have seen an abundance of healthy competition and
increasingly better and less expensive products. Unfortunately this
has not worked well in the software industry, but there is no reason
that it couldn't. While establishing software standards is arguably
more complicated and more involved, many successful independent
standards have been developed. The database Structured Query
Language (SQL) is a good example. If I want to build a database, I
have many database vendors to choose from that all follow the SQL
standard. I can even change vendors at a later time and still have
the interoperability I require.
To this end I would like to recommend the following (at a
minimum):
1. Microsoft should be required to publicly disclose all APIs,
protocols and file formats. These should be available to
ANYONE--NOT just parties with a justified business case. The
documentation of all Microsoft APIs, protocols and file formats
should be carried out by an independent, overseeing party (not
Microsoft), as to ensure quality and accurate documentation. This
measure would create a more fair market place by opening up
competition to implement interoperable products in desktop software.
2. Microsoft should be penalized for any independent standards
that they alter. Microsoft has often altered standards for their own
benefit and for extending their monopoly. For any standard Microsoft
alters or does not adhere to, they should be required to correct for
full compliance.
3. Microsoft should also be required to release their source
code for any products that they no longer support. Consumers should
not be forced to upgrade their software any time Microsoft releases
new products, but that is typically what happens. Having source code
available for any products that Microsoft no longer supports will
give the consumer a more fair choice about the decision to upgrade.
4. Finally, Microsoft should not be allowed to dictate what gets
bundled with their operating systems. This is exactly what they use
to extend their monopoly, making the market place unfair and putting
other companies out of business. As part of their punishment for
violating U.S. anti-trust laws, everything they decide to bundle
with their operating system should be scrutinized and approved by an
independent governing body.
I would appreciate your consideration of my comments.
Thank you,
Jon Reuter
Consulting Engineer
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033393
From: Dave Neu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I dislike the proposed settlement, and find it alarming on a
number of points which are, I am certain, well documented in Dan
Kegel's open comments letter.
Thanks for your time.
Dave Neu
It is tempting, when the only tool you have is a hammer, to
treat everything as if it were a nail.
Abraham Maslow
MTC-00033394
From: Denny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea.
MTC-00033395
From: Robert Koster
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Koster
11341 Brunswick Way
Santa Ana, CA 92705-2311
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 30079]]
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 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,
Robert A. Koster, Ph.D. (computer science)
MTC-00033396
From: Jonathan Lupa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40pm
Subject: Voicing opposition to the current MS settlement.
As a professional win32 software developer, there are many
aspects of the settlement that I find troubling not least of which
is the fact that the government is entering into a concilliatory
agreement with a proven monopolist who has committed crimes and
flaunted previous consent agreements.
To save both our time, I will mention just one of my many
grievances which is that without a structural change in the
management of API vs. Application layer within the windows operating
system, any remedy found by the agreement will only be temporary as
it leaves open the door to further abuse of their monopoly position
to price and engineer competition out of the win32 product market.
I apologise for not entering a technical breakdown of the
reasoning I used to reach this conclusion, but in the short time you
have to review these letters, I doubt you will find the time to
check everyones logic. I wish you the best in your endevours on this
project.
Respectfully,
Jonathan Lupa
Senior Win32 Developer
Creative Solutions Inc.
[email protected]
GPG public key available from http://lupavista.jamdata.net/
gpg.asc
or a keyserver near you.
MTC-00033399
From: David Anfinrud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel that this case is unjust. Innovation is being hurt by
these litigations. It appears that people just want to take all of
Microsoft's war chest that allows it to continue to innovate even
more. What will happen if we have no Microsoft. Will innovation
continue. Microsoft has been a leading edge in the last few years.
I was a Netscape user I paid for my copy of Netscape in spite of
the free Internet explorer. I supported the company I respected.
Until they provided a poor product during several upgrades. Each
time I loaded the latest and greatest it had even more problems than
the previous product. When that took place the third time I stopped
using it. A company has to earn my money. They need to innovate. I
had so many crashes and problems with Netscape I said enough is
enough. No matter how good they said they were if it doesn't work it
is not worth having or paying for. It was the innovation and the
improvements that made the difference not the cost. I want something
that works not something that was hit and miss.
I have used a large number of Word Processors in my time. I was
a big fan of Word Perfect but again innovation started to disappear
from the product. I also owned the complete Word Perfect Suite. I
paid for a quality product. At that time Word Perfect was the
innovator that Microsoft had to compete against. In the early years
no one could touch Word Perfect Office. Now I can't compare the two.
Microsoft has developed a better Office suite. Now Microsoft Office
meets my needs. Word Perfect is still dear to my heart but again
innovation is what has won out. I will stay with a company only so
long. Today It is Microsoft Office. Tomorrow who knows but it had
better be a better product than what Microsoft has developed.
Innovation again wins out. It was the way the companies see about
developing their products. Yes Microsoft was aggressive but is it
not true in any business. You find where you are lacking and improve
the weakness and innovate.
Today Microsoft is the Leader. They are looking ahead. While the
competition should be improving their own products they spend money
and political favors to try to prevent the next series of
innovations from taking place. Is it the interest of the public to
prevent a better product from being developed because those who
don't want to innovate feel they are being cheated? Are we to
provide poor quality items instead of excellent ones? Where is the
public interest in that? What is happening behind the scenes? I see
congressman trying to destroy Microsoft in favor of companies in
their own states.
I believe it is in the best interest to get this court case over
with. Enough is enough. Resources that could provide a better
product for Microsoft Users is being hindered and given to lawyers.
The only winners here are the lawyers, a few non innovating
companies, and the states but not the public. Every one wants
something. There are a number of companies out in the market who
practice even worse monopoly powers.
They just don't have the exposure. This case has hurt the Tech
sector of the economy. It still provides a drag with no end in
sight. In a middle of a recession and still the good of Microsoft
and its present day accomplishments are demonized because of what
happened years ago.
Sincerely yours.
David A. Anfinrud
234 243rd Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98074
MTC-00033400
From: John C. Stilin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Now AOL Sues For Netscape?
I seem to recall that the Netscape Navigator Browser could be
downloaded free from the Netscape Web site and oh by the way they
forced you to accepted it with a home page default set to Netscape.
Did anybody ever bother to check how many people paid for the free
browser per the Netscape agreement? How can Netscape claim harm when
Microsoft priced their product Internet Explorer to equal that of
Netscape? How do you undercut free? Just goes to prove if you can't
compete in the high tech industry, forget personal accountability,
blame somebody else and sue. It's the American way.
Let's not waste more taxpayer dollars in this matter just
because Netscape doesn't know how to run a business.
John C. Stilin
[email protected]
17611 NE 110th Way Redmond WA 98052
425.881.1632 tel
425.881.6173 fax
425.922.3435 cel
MTC-00033401
From: Jerry Higdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I hope that the Justice Department will stick by the settlement
it has reached with Microsoft. I feel it's a fair and just
settlement and I hope that you urge the rest of the states who
haven't yet settled to do so. Microsoft has been put through the
ringer for long enough and it's high time to end this whole mess and
let them get back to business. The settlement is reasonable enough
not to hurt them to the point where they are forced to go out of
business but is harsh enough to
[[Page 30080]]
silence most of their critics. For example, Microsoft will have to
share information about the internal workings of its Windows
operating system, which will allow computer makers to more easily
install non-Microsoft software on Windows-based machines. This is
harsh, but it is still better than Microsoft being broken up into
little pieces.
The settlement will appease all interests in the Microsoft
antitrust case. I support it, and hope to see if finalized soon.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jerry Higdon
MTC-00033402
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed
settlement between the United States Department of Justice and
Microsoft Corporation regarding the finding of antitrust activities
of Microsoft.
I am highly concerned that through the predatory actions of
Microsoft, Microsoft products are the de facto standards for many
areas of personal and business computing and office work. The
barriers to competition raised by Microsoft through its intertwined
operating system, network products, and Office Suite make it nearly
impossible for any competitors to arise in these areas. I am
personally quite disappointed in the quality of these Microsoft
products, and would be quite willing to purchase alternatives if
they existed.
I believe that without remedy the situation with Microsoft
dominance of whatever product lines they choose will become worse. I
believe that the present remedy proposed by the DOJ will do nothing
to improve this situation, or curb Microsoft's predatory practices.
In the interest of brevity, I will discuss the one remedy that I
find most important. In an office environment, I find that the use
of alternatives to Microsoft products, (Macintosh, Linux, or Office
alternatives) is limited by the practical limitations of
transferring data (email, documents, etc) from a Microsoft platform
to a competitive platform. That is, for me to function in a modern
office environment, any documents I send to others must open
flawlessly by Microsoft products; any documents sent to me by
Microsoft product users must be opened flawlessly by me. Since
Microsoft keeps its data standards proprietary, it is nearly
impossible to develop a 100% compatible alternative.
Through its practices, Microsoft now dictates the de facto
standards for email, word processing, spreadsheets, and
presentations. I would urge the DOJ to find a remedy that would
force Microsoft to make their format an open standard, readily open
to competitors to use. Microsoft would not be forced to turn over
sensitive information to competitors on their products; rather, they
would be compelled to enable functional competition within data
formats that they have made as industry standards through their
practices.
I am sensitive to Microsoft's claims that their know how in
application software should be preserved. I am much more interested
in enabling competitors to build programs that can compete with
Microsoft by being compatible with Microsoft file formats. Data must
not be captive to one company and format, but be transferable across
different formats and systems. The DOJ has it in its power to enable
this competition into the future.
In any case, the current proposed settlement is horrible, so I
do urge its rejection.
Sincerely,
Paul Drzaic
Morgan Hill, California
MTC-00033403
From: Codifex Maximus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern and:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001,
I am concerned with the length of duration of the judgment as
proposed in the Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. Microsoft
has shown a contempt for consent decrees and judgments in the past
and based on past experience will probably do so again.
I am alarmed at the impunity in which Microsoft acts in the
information and technology spheres. It would seem to me that
Microsoft is attempting to usurp the constitutional powers of the
United States Government--is not disregarding the rule of law
such an action? Should Microsoft not abide by a decree or judgment
until it is overturned or nullified rather that continuing business
as usual while the wheels of justice turn? To contain such
activities, I've constructed an example of an alternative duration
of Judgment. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer.
Duration of Final Judgment
This Final Judgment shall remain in force until Microsoft has
been judged, by the tripartite oversight committee and the court of
jurisdiction, to have maintained compliance with this document
(final judgment document) for an initial 5 years and for 2
additional years for each adjudged infringement of the controls in
this document. Each adjudged infringement of the controls in the
Final Judgment document, by Microsoft or it's entities, shall also
have a financial penalty assessed. Such financial penalty is to be
determined by a schedule of penalties determined by the tripartite
committee and the court of jurisdiction. The penalties shall in no
way deprive lawful entities under the jurisdiction of the United
States of America of their civil right to suit.
I am a Citizen of the United States of America and I wish to
remain in command of my rights and liberties as guaranteed under the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights including all statutory and
common law rights. I pray that the Department of Justice will
protect these rights by ensuring we have a free and competitive
market in information as well as other technologies.
Sincerely,
Bennie Gravitt
[email protected]
Phone: 817-946-2332
MTC-00033404
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this travesty
of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David & Lisa Short
4340 State Route 193
Cherry Valley Township
Dorset, OH 44032
MTC-00033405
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors,
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the
computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen. Please put a stop to this travesty
of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Denis Quinn
1578 11th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122-3615
MTC-00033406
From: Brent Casavant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002
Submitted to the United States Department of Justice, in
accordance with the public comment period provided by the Tunney
[[Page 30081]]
Act, in regard to the case United States vs. Microsoft (Civil Action
No. 98-1232 (CKK)).
Introduction Comments upon the proposed Final Judgement in its
whole If there is one striking feature of this proposed Final
Judgement, it is the lack of any form of punishment or restitution
imposed upon Microsoft such that it forfeits the gains due to its
anticompetitive practices. The remedies therein provide only for
behavioral modification and oversight, but fail in any manner to
deny Microsoft the fruits it has enjoyed from its illegal behavior.
While I do not propose a specific punishment, I believe it is in
the interest of the United States, its citizens, and all commercial
entitites to discourage anticompetitive practices. Unless this
proposed Final Judgement is significantly strengthened the
provisions will serve as little more than a ``slap on the
wrist''. This sends a clear message to all monopolies that the
law may be freely flouted and disregarded as long as legal
proceedings can be sufficiently drawn out to firmly enthrone the
monopoly in an unassailable market position. More importantly, this
sends a clear message to Microsoft that it may do so again at any
time it should so choose.
There is also a specific behavioral and punitive remedy which is
notably lacking from the proposed Final Judgement which should be
considered for inclusion. Microsoft has achieved large portions of
its market dominance through ``locking in'' end users to
its proprietary application (i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint) data file
formats, and through making incompatible changes to such formats,
forcing end users into purchase of new application software to
conduct business with other parties.
This could be remedied through either of two means:
Require Microsoft to make available, in a timely manner, all
information regarding application file formats necessary for third
parties to develop software which is capable of interoperating with
the Microsoft application software.
--Require Microsoft to implement, as the default and preferred
option, file formats which are trivially reverse-engineered by third
parties for the purpose of interoperability.
In either case Microsoft should be required to assign licenses
to any intellectual property needed to properly implement software
which can interoperate with the Microsoft application software.
There is another area of general weakness in the proposed Final
Judgement. Underlying the entire judgement is a presupposition that
only for-profit commercial entities will enter into licensing
agreements (either explicitly or through the purchase of Microsoft
products and services). However, there is a large and increasing
number of not-for-profit organizations which develop software
(typically so-called ``Open Source'' software) which is
distributed free of charge. Such organizations cannot in and of
themself wield the financial incentives necessary to cause Microsoft
to provide them the documentation or intellectual property rights
necessary to implement software which is interoperable with
Microsoft products.
While Microsoft certainly has a reasonable right to expect
compensation for its efforts, research, development, and
intellectual property, it is also clear that they will use their
monopoly position to choke out any competition from these not-for-
profit organizations. The proposed Final Judgement should be amended
to provide for the release of information necessary for
interoperability to these not-for-profit organizations. This is only
one of the many ways in which amends can be made for the
anticompetitive practices of Microsoft, and to take some small bite
out of the fruits of their illegal behavior.
Comments upon specific provisions of the Proposed Final
Judgement Section III.E The terms of this section are inadequate to
address harms and disadvantages already imposed upon third parties
with regard to Communications Protocols. Microsoft has demonstrated
with regularity that it will modify existing protocols, both those
of its own design (i.e. the SMB protocol) and of other widely
accepted protocols (i.e. the Kerberos protocol), with tenuous
technical justification. While one cannot adequately judge
Microsoft's every intention in such matters, it is often clear that
these decisions do little more than lock out competetitors from
interoperating with Microsoft products.
As such, the remedy in Section III.E should be amended to cover
existing protocols for current Microsoft Windows Operating System
Products. This section remedy also fails to address the terms under
which these Communication Protocols must be made available to third
parties. There is no provision that such disclosures must be made
under reasonable or fair terms to the third party. This inadequacy
should be addressed so as to prevent Microsoft from circumventing
the spirit of this order by an action as simple as making the price
of such information practically unobtainable for all but the largest
of ISVs.
Sections III.H.1 and III.H.2
These provisions are inadequate to the extent that they do not
stipulate that Microsoft must reasonably ensure the correct
operation of the specific Windows Operating System Product after
these actions are taken. This section should also restrict Microsoft
from displaying alarming messages or languages which would serve to
dissuade end users from utilizing Non-Microsoft Middleware Products.
Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness to deliberately
compromise the stability of their own software products in order to
discourage the use of third party software. This was demonstrated
most clearly in the early i990's when they implemented checks for
the DR-DOS operating environment in their Windows Operating System
Products. In this case an alarming message was displayed to end
users which served to discourage use of the DR-DOS product,
and the Windows Operating System Product was (anecdotally)
deliberately designed to interoperate poorly with the DR-DOS
product.
Section III.H.3
There is little technical justification for the arbitrary limit
of 14 days, after which Microsoft Operating System Products may
automatically prompt the end user to confirm alteration of an OEM's
configuration. While it is certainly justifiable to allow the user
to cause the Operating System Product to revert to a Microsoft-
specified configuration, it is not reasonable to automatically ask
the user to confirm or prohibit this reconfiguration.
As such, this provision should be amended as to prevent
Microsoft from implementing a system which prompts the user to
restore Microsoft-specified configurations, unless the end user has
initiated a deliberate action to cause this to occur. That is to
say, the end user should need to initiate the action which causes a
Microsoft specified configuration to be restored.
Section III.H.2 (second set of numbered items)
This section allows a Windows Operating System Product to invoke
a Microsoft Middleware Product in a case where the Non-Microsoft
Middleware Product fails to implement certain technical
requirements.
This section should be amended to include language which
prohibits the Windows Operating System Product from taking this
action due to additional technical requirements imposed after
release of the Non-Microsoft Middleware Product. That is, Microsoft
must be prevented from requiring ISVs to update previously compliant
(by the terms of this provision) products. This limitation, however,
should not apply in the case of a major revision of the Windows
Operating System Product.
Section V.B
Microsoft has demonstrated a remarkable ability to delay and
hinder legal proceeding against it. As such this provision should be
amended to provide for an indefinite limited term extensions of the
Final Judgement while any legal proceedings against Microsoft
according to this provision are underway. Such an amendment should
also provide that the Final Judgement will expire no earlier than
one year after the date of termination of such proceedings, in order
to further ensure compliance.
Background and contact information I am interested in this
matter as a long-time technology enthusiast and worker. My formal
education is in computer and electrical engineering, and my work
experience and personal interests have given me a deep understanding
of the technical merits and considerations involved in software
development, particularly in the area of operating systems. I am
currently in the employ of a major computer systems manufacturer and
vendor, a competitor in some fields with Microsoft, with my
engineering work focusing on operating system software development.
Brent Casavant
3627 26th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55406
612-724-0293
[email protected]
Brent Casavant
[email protected]
http://www.angeltread.org/bcasavan/
MTC-00033407
From: David Stoddard
To: Microsoft ATR
[[Page 30082]]
Date: 1/24/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
As a graphic designer and a college teacher I deal with web page
production on a regular basis. It is my experience that Microsoft's
web browser Internet Explorer has default settings which are
designed to force designers to depend on Microsoft products for web
page development.
By setting the default size of html text to a large size
Microsoft insures that text will appear too large and therefore may
cause some designs which depend on sliced images in tables to have
gaps or otherwise be distorted. To compensate for this designers may
have to reduce the size of type to such a small size that it becomes
difficult to read on other browsers. This effectively makes it
difficult to design for any browser but Explorer and makes using non
Microsoft development tools require extra steps. Since the other
development tools are often more intuitive to use than the Microsoft
tools, not going through the extra steps requires designers to use
less effective products.
Undermining the standard in order to control the market seems to
be Microsoft's main method for success. The strategy seems to be
irritation over innovation, This is such a bad practice. Internet
Explorer is a great product. So, I can't tell if it is greed or
paranoia that motivates Microsoft to attempt to control all aspects
of the web where software is concerned.
Practices such as this should be regulated or punished.
Unfortunately, no one is in a position to punish Microsoft in the
market place. It would be good if government would do its job. If
corporations could be trusted to do the right thing we would not
need government. I think we need to see something better than a slap
on the wrist or rewarding Microsoft by giving them a sure method of
getting their products into schools without competition. How does
this change things for the better?
David Stoddard
a concerned citizen
MTC-00033408
From: James M. Corey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Hello. I'm an engineer currently working in the computer field.
I received my Master's degree several years ago, and am now raising
a family in Oregon.
Know that I have been following the adventures of Microsoft for
over 15 years now, and for the past 9 years I have been acutely
aware of disturbing behavior evident in Microsoft's business
practices. So I started to pay more attention to them, and what I
saw I did not like. For the past 5 years now, I have avoided using
their products, which is not an easy thing. I hardly need to go into
detail about the damage they have done to technologically valuable
initiatives such as the Java portability initiative, the world-wide-
web connectivity initiative, and now the public-interest software
initiative (by which I am referring to the recent trend toward
volunteer software projects by and for computer users, under the
open source licensing agreement that Microsoft has begun to lobby
against).
The trouble they have caused for hundreds of specific
competitors, large and small, pales in comparison to the damage and
stunted growth they have caused to the industry in general, and
thus, to the populace. I think we can agree that for all its
shortcomings, computer technology has brought many benefits to the
modern world. I take seriously the threat posed by Microsoft to our
national information infrastructure, and also the harm they have
done to the progress of the computer industry in general. I take
offense at their attempts to lay claim to the modest progress that
has been made, in many cases despite their own efforts.
You might think it odd to hear these comments from an employee
of Intel, a company seen as ``co-conspirator'' of
Microsoft, at least in the eyes of the PC consumer. Intel is a
company that seeks to be selected by consumers as a matter of
choice, and indeed the consumers currently have several choices in
this regard. Intel has expressed interest in the availability of
similar choices in PC operating systems, such as with their interest
in NeXTStep and their interest (and investment) in RedHat. However,
these software ventures can not succeed in the current Microsoft-
controlled climate. So, Intel is stuck with Microsoft at the helm.
In fact, there is now a strong atmosphere of fear within the
``troops'' at Intel regarding internal departure from
Microsoft products, as though Microsoft has the resources and
inclination to chastise us.
I can only hope that such is not the case. However, apparently
Microsoft has expressed disapproval on several occasions regarding
Intel projects that don't fit in with Microsoft's plans, resulting
in lost opportunities for Intel. I ask you, if such large companies
as Intel, IBM, and HP are frightened by Microsoft, where does that
leave the consumer? Unfortunately, the public assumes our complicity
is voluntary, but the truth is, it has not been entirely voluntary,
nor has it been very conducive to progress. Thus our reputation
suffers indirectly, by association.
But I seem to be beating a dead horse. By my understanding, the
crimes of, and harm caused by, Microsoft have been established. The
issue is apparently what response to provide.
I read about the dismissal of Judge Jackson with some distaste,
but not nearly as much as when I heard the new proposed penalty of
giving Microsoft software to primary schools. As the PENALTY? This
seemed like a joke in very poor taste. The idea could only have come
from Microsoft. It is hard for me to understand how they could be so
lucky in escaping justice. It seemed almost as if they were being
rewarded rather than punished. Something is very wrong with the way
these events have been developing.
So I had my doubts when I went to review the proposed final
judgment at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, but I am
glad to see it seems to contain some restrictions. Unfortunately, it
doesn't seem restrictive enough to be effective. Microsoft has
continually acted in flagrant violation of the law; they obviously
think it is their right to act as they have acted. If they are not
dissuaded more effectively, two things will result. First of all, I
fear others will conclude that no one including the United States
government can stand up to Microsoft and their lawyers, which will
lead others to fear Microsoft even more than they already do.
Secondly, it will continue a dangerous precedent of tolerance, of
which other large organizations may take note.
I notice that the protections afforded by the judgment are
heavily slanted toward middle-ware, which seems like an unnecessary
distinction. Microsoft has described web browsers as an intermediate
platform and API for software applications to run on, thus falling
broadly under the category of middle-ware, but this is heavily
colored by their fear of how quickly a combination of Java and a web
browser could erode customers'' dependence on their own
products. Yet, the main purpose of a web browser is simply to
provide a multimedia, hypertext interface to information on the web.
A viewer with one-way interaction, not an operating system. Nor any
kind of middle-ware, unless you consider a document viewer to be
middle-ware, as it is with a Microsoft Word virus. There has been,
and continues to be, a need for safe web browsers which limit the
damage that can be caused to the user's computer simply by viewing a
document on the web. In typical fashion, Microsoft ignores this
simple need of the consumer in favor of their own selfish need to
usurp control of the web viewer (and eventually web server) industry
and prevent it from threatening their customer lock-in. Consider,
though, that the result is the same as for many other important
types of software in which they have taken an interest. Movie
software, for instance, is their current target. Soon, they will
take over that market and control it as they have so many others.
If for some reason they should find it convenient to portray it
as middle-ware, then their new operating systems would suddenly have
an increased emphasis on 3D, animated interaction, thus making the
multimedia layer integral to the operating system, and the computer
software universe will warp to their will. But I digress. The
middle-ware distinction is arbitrary.
Even so, if the protection must be limited to middle-ware, the
restrictions are so specific regarding which product and which
scenario, that they will soon be outdated and ineffective. Here are
some specific points I came across:
*. III in general, is much too kind in its careful elaboration
of exactly which scenarios Microsoft isn't allowed to retaliate in.
It should instead have simply barred Microsoft from retaliating
against business partners for any business choices they make, by
mandating a fixed price, and prohibiting the practice of selectively
distributing copies of their operating system as though the supply
were limited. There was no mention of this latter practice, as far
as I know.
*. III.H.1 is clearly addressed to one symptom of the squeeze-
out behavior. I fear that after so much worrying over one particular
tactic used by Microsoft, that they will simply emphasize other
tactics or invent new ones. The basic behavior of misusing their
advantage must be addressed, as well as these particular methods
they have come to rely on. The exceptions to III.H would appear
[[Page 30083]]
necessary only from the viewpoint that wishes to preserve the
advantage of Microsoft middle-ware over non-Microsoft middle-ware.
The second exception, in particular, is so open-ended and
convenient for Microsoft, that I suspect it will undo even the
limited protection which III.H is meant to afford.
*. IV.B.10 and parts of IV.C.3 suggest a very limited disclosure
of Microsoft's dealings with the compliance enforcers (i.e. TC).
Taken together, the picture is that of a company whose run-ins with
the law are kept private. Of course this has the advantage of
limiting impact to Microsoft's public image, but this is also a
disadvantage. By keeping such things private, an aspiring developer,
or even a consumer, is kept in the dark about dangerous situations
that may be quite relevant to their own involvement with Microsoft.
Also I see no reason why only officers and directors should be
briefed regarding the TC. Shouldn't all Microsoft employees be aware
of the arrangement?
It sounds so secretive. If there is some other reason for such
details, please forgive my ignorance.
*. IV.B.8.b.i is illustrative of the surplus care which has been
taken to avoid impacting Microsoft. In effect if the TC wishes to
talk to an employee, it will likely be categorized as an interview,
notice will have to be served to Microsoft, and the employee will
almost certainly be accompanied by a Microsoft lawyer. Although I
wouldn't dare to suggest that anyone at the company would ever lie,
on the record or off, I have to wonder what kind of incriminating
evidence one would expect to gain from such a conference. From a
theoretical point of view, I have some trouble imagining how the
employee's career could legally be defended from taking a wrong turn
if information were disclosed.
*. VI.N.ii--Limiting protection of non-MS middle-ware to
those with one million copies distributed during the previous year
seems to imply that only large, well-established players will be
protected. New ventures must then fight an uphill battle. Unfair.
*. V. The extension clause doesn't help much. Of course, 5 years
is a long time, but not long enough. Now, if one has to get court
consensus to extend by a year, I presume that the usual delay
tactics could push the decision itself past one year anyway. I would
have thought that if the TC had to lift one finger against
Microsoft, that alone should be grounds for another 5 year
extension, with no limit. I suppose the interest is in figuring out
how Microsoft will circumvent the measures in the short term, which
may well be the most pertinent question.
These are examples of the things that worry me when I read the
judgment. I haven't the expertise to analyze the document in great
detail, and that is to be expected. So I leave you with my
impressions as a citizen. The proposed final judgment seems to have
a lot more language granting loopholes and exceptions to Microsoft,
than it contains restraints upon them. Having read this document, I
fear that it is not strong enough to stop Microsoft's criminal
behavior. I am dissatisfied with the judgment, even to the point
that I felt slightly ill when I first read it. People are joking
that Microsoft has gotten off pretty easy, and it does indeed look
that way. I think Microsoft has had too much input into the proposed
final judgment.
If you want my recommendation, focus on the fact that
Microsoft's lock on the market, and its power over competitors,
rests fundamentally on its control of standards. The only way I know
of to wrest that control from them is to let an independent party,
perhaps a government laboratory, to write the standards and make
them publicly available for all developers and companies to work
with. That would provide a positive and healthy result from this
massive embroilment. This should be done regardless of whether
Microsoft is to escape direct penalization.
As a prologue, after writing the above, I checked on the web for
other opinions on the settlement, and it appears that I naively
missed many deeper problems. In order that my correspondence not be
unduly influenced, I have not rewritten it, but the situation is
worse than I realized. As worded, the judgment may even work in
Microsoft's favor, rather than merely failing to curtail. Please, do
not let this travesty continue unchecked.
James M. Corey
[email protected]
Intel, Ronler Acres Campus (Oregon)
MTC-00033409
From: Clark Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello. I am an independent software engineer (i.e., contractor)
who lives in Hillsboro, Oregon. I wish to comment on the proposed
Microsoft Settlement.
I believe that the potential effects of the proposed settlement
can be easily judged by the responses from the monopolist
(Microsoft) and its adversaries (the nation's computer software
industry): Microsoft is delighted and the computer software industry
thinks the settlement does nothing to rein in Microsoft's abuses.
Conversely, the last time I recall that the United States
successfully prosecuted a monopolist, the affected party (AT&T)
bitterly complained about the proposed remedy. The fact that
Microsoft thinks this settlement is wonderful should give the court
pause, to ask a very simple question: Is the court being played by
Microsoft?
In my opinion, the answer is a definitive ``Yes.'' In
my opinion, if the court does not take decisive action to punish
this company for its anticompetitive practices, then Microsoft will
never again fear retribution for its actions. I hope the court will
recall the long list of companies that Microsoft has crushed,
including: WordPerfect (now Corel), Lotus, Novell, Apple, Stac, and
Netscape. If nothing is done to hobble this monopolist, then once
its ``punishment'' phase is over, Microsoft will never,
ever again fear government intervention and/or regulation. After
all, if a company gets convicted as a monopolist and walks away with
a ``delightful'' settlement, what should it worry about in
the future?
Recall that when AT&T was broken up, the long distance
market was opened to competition, which lowered long distance rates
to extremely inexpensive rates. For example, I currently pay $0.05/
minute for long distance calls placed in the evenings and all day on
weekends. If AT&T still held the monopoly for long distance, I
--know-- I would not have access to $0.05/minute calls.
As things stand now, Microsoft is the AT&T of the software
industry. Every new release of its Windows operating system is the
same price: $90-$100 for an upgrade $225 for a complete release
Every new release of its office suite is the same price:
$200-225 for an upgrade $400 for a complete release Where is
the competition? There is none, which is the consequence of buying
from a monopolist. The court has a chance to step in here and
squelch this monopoly. Please don't let Microsoft dictate the terms
of this settlement.
Respectfully,
Clark O. Morgan
346 NW Treglown Ct.
Hillsboro, OR 97124
([email protected])
MTC-00033410
From: Ethan Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft is a proven monopoly. Its illegal practices are a
detriment to innovation. Microsoft's continuance as a monopoly,
which the current settlement has assured, will be a hindrance to the
market, not an aid.
Sincerely,
Ethan Larson
MTC-00033411
From: Dim-skies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:34pm
Subject: aol vs. microsoft
Dears Sirs,
I think the AOL lawsuit is just another attempt to bleed a
successful business, when you can't compete. I feel that a monopoly
is when the consumer has nowhere else to turn. If I don't like my
cable, or phone company, where do I go? Granted, other OS's aren't
as pervasive, but they are available. That is hardly the same as
``not available''. AOL paid big money for a loser, and now
they want help. What has happened to America? This is just another
shameful example running to the Government for help for everything,
including stupidity.
Sincerely,
Tom Wong
Port Orchard, WA 98366
MTC-00033412
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop;
the fact is, this case
[[Page 30084]]
against Microsoft is little more than ``welfare'' for
Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to
those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. This is
just another method for states to get free money, and a terrible
precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer technology,
but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic industry the world
has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grace Stewart
5312 Bethany Way
Lakeland, FL 33810-1827
MTC-00033413
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gentlemen:
I have resided on this planet for a series of decades. I have
managed to live through the era of governmental regulation of
monopolies such as railroads, steel, oil, airlines, telephones, and
utilities. And I have seen the results. Competition unfet-tered by
regulation works well, as Adam Smith predicted. But when the legal
system enters the economic arena, it is a sore losers contest where
only the legal profession benefits.
I have used and abused both browser systems, and like Beta-Max
and V H S, one will survive....BUT LET IT BE THE CONSUMER, not the
courts which determine this end. I have always had a distinct
distaste for the mink in the duck pond which destroys purely for the
sake of destruction. And that is the aim of AOL in this
matter...Despicable at best.
Sincerely,
Craig G. Pause & Trinidad Brown
Note: Our family does own shares in both corporations...I may
dump AOL on ethical grounds alone.
MTC-00033414
From: J. Lucha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I was in complete shock and outrage when I first read the
Proposed Final Judgment.
I've been a computer programmer for the last six years, and have
been a computer hobbyist for more than twenty.
I have used virtually every type of computer software and
hardware during those years from Microsoft and its competitors.
Unlike the general public, I have first hand experience with most of
the products that Microsoft has destroyed over the years through
anti-competitive practices. In many cases, the competitors product
was superior. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has held
the computing industry back more than ten years. Our world will
never know what could have been achieved had the computing world not
been crippled.
The settlement fails to provide the remedy needed for a healthy,
productive and competitive technological industry. In fact, it may
be argued by many that the settlement actually strengthens
Microsoft's monopoly and allow them to bully those that compete with
them.
Here are just a few of the many points where the Proposed Final
Judgment fails:
1. First and foremost, the settlement does not address
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains. Microsoft is allowed to keep billions
of dollars acquired illegally. How many convicted thieves are
allowed to keep their stolen goods?
2. The three person technical panel created by the settlement
has some glaring problems. The first problem is Microsoft gets to
select one member of the panel, who in turn has a say as to who the
third member is. Sounds like Microsoft basically controls the panel.
The second problem is that the panel members are not allowed to
disclose any information to the public. If Microsoft is in any
violation, the public will not know.
3. No punishment for the executives of Microsoft that knowingly
and willingly led their company into law breaking actions. A strong
message must be sent to businesses that unlawful and unethical
behavior will not be tolerated. Without such a deterrent, business
are encouraged to act in whatever means will lead to their greatest
profits. The burden then lies upon the victims. I do not want my tax
dollars constantly spent correcting wrongs that might not have
occurred if the proper deterrents were in place.
4. While the API's used to communicate with the operating system
will be documented and released, it will only be done for companies
and business that Microsoft deems have a viable business. The Free
Software movement has been acknowledged by Microsoft to be its
biggest competition, yet they have publicly stated that businesses
with a basis in Free Software don't have a viable business model.
So, their toughest competition is excluded from the API's to begin
with.
5. The duration of the restrictions is a mere 5 years, which is
not a significant amount of time to reverse the detrimental damage
caused by Microsoft. As a software developer myself, I can assure
you it will take at least five years before a competitor can
accumulate the necessary business infrastructure (funding, staff).
It would probably take another five years before a useable product
is developed. Also, if Microsoft is found to be in violation, there
is no extension to the duration of the restrictions.
6. The settlement is full of loopholes for Microsoft to take
advantage of. The main ones being the definitions defined in the
Proposed Final Judgment such as API. I also find it alarming that
the definitions have already been altered from the ones used in the
``Findings of Facts''. Microsoft has been found guilty in
previous court hearings, and used the loopholes contained within
those settlements to render them useless.
What good will it have done to have spent so much taxpayer
money, and have nothing to show for it. For examples of ways in
which Microsoft may twist the meaning of the definitions to render
them useless please read http://www.os2hq.com/archives/arch46.htm .
7. The settlement does not address the file formats used by
Microsoft's Office programs. With each new version of Microsoft's
office suite programs, they change the format of the documents
created. This creates a barrier to entry for competing office
software. It is also a means to force current customers in a never
ending upgrade cycle, where they purchase the upgrade to be able to
read the files sent to them by others, even though they themselves
do not need the added features of the newer version.
A Final judgment that would be in the best interest of the
consumer might include some of the following:
1. Microsoft would have to give a sum of at least $5 billion in
cash to the Free Software Foundation. One of the goals of the Free
Software Foundation is to support the development of software that
is a viable alternative to Microsoft's products. Microsoft has
publicly acknowledge d that Open Source is their most viable
competitor. True competition can be brought about by helping fund
the independent developers found in the Open Source community.
2. Microsoft would have to pay the legal expense of any business
that brings a legal case against Microsoft during the duration of
the restrictions. This would prevent Microsoft's typical defense
against competitor lawsuits: stalling. There are numerous cases that
have never been brought against Microsoft because the company or
individual didn't have the financial resources for the long, drawn
out case that Microsoft's legal army executes.
3. All Microsoft executives and managers would have to enroll in
a University business law and ethics class every year at the
individuals expense for the duration of the settlement. They must
attain a grade of of at least a ``B'' or they must retake
the course the following semester/quarter.
4. Any specification or API that must be known to offer a
competing product must be well documented at least six months prior
to Microsoft's release of the product. If the specification is
changed, then the product released date must also be delayed.
5. Any contract between Microsoft and the major OEM's (Gateway,
Compaq, Dell), ISV's (AOL, CompuServe), etc., must be approved by an
independent panel.
6. If Microsoft is to bundle application software such as
Internet Explorer with their operating system software, they must
also include a competing product such as Netscape Communicator.
7. The true price of Microsoft's applications and operating
systems must be listed as a line item when purchasing computers.
Currently the costs of Microsoft's products are bundled into the
hardware costs, and the consumer is unaware of the true price paid
for the Microsoft product. If the price is listed, a consumer that
feels it is too much, will inquire about alternatives.
If we set forth laws, and do nothing when those laws are broken,
then there is no point to have our society. Microsoft has violated
the law, but the Proposed Final Judgment does nothing but ask them
not to violate them any more.
James Lucha
Programmer/Analyst
Moreno Valley, CA
E-Mail: [email protected]
[[Page 30085]]
MTC-00033415
From: Daniel Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Peters
175 E. 96th St. Suite 15K
New York, NY 10128
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my NON-support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. After reviewing the
terms of this Judgment, the final approval is clearly NOT in the
public interest. To me, Microsoft is similar to AT&T before it
was split into separate Regional companies. Microsoft has too much
monopoly power. It controls the operating system & writes
applications for that operating system. This is an unbalanced
playing field. Competitors do NOT have the same access to the
operating system that Microsoft's developers have.
Please seek to create a settlement that is more advantageous to
consumers.
Sincerely,
Daniel Peters
MTC-00033416
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement PLEASE READ
The only thing the Microsoft's competitors really need to level
the playing field is to have access to Microsoft's file formats,
free of charge or at most nominal, for the Office range of products.
Without access to these they will never have the ability to compete
in the corporate world. IT departments simply cannot ostracize
themselves by picking an alternate OS then not having compatibility
with their computers via email and document exchanges. How
frustrating is it for you when someone sends you a file via email
that you cannot open, now imagine that times a 1000 or 10,000 how
long would you keep your customer base.
There are great products out there that major corporations
simply cannot afford to use them do to the amount of work involved
in getting them to be useable outside of the company by their
customers and business contacts or partners. Just take Microsoft's
ability to lock customers in just because that's what every body
else uses.
Andre'' Smith
LMSI Solutions Center
1981 Snyder Richland Wa 99352
(509) 373-4207
MTC-00033417
From: Fisher
To: MSvsusdoj
Date: 1/25/02 7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
In view of the fact that both District Court and Appeals Court
have determined that Micosoft has violated the Sherman Act, I find
it difficult to belive that the DOJ's proposed settlment in
Microsoft's case is in the public interest. As a consumer I don't
understand, how does the DOJ's decision ensure that I'd be still
able to obtain the platform, operating system, and other elements of
computer-ware of my choice when I'm left at the mercy a single,
mnonopolist, monolithic, vender for all my software needs. In my
view, the DOJ's decision appears to be stilted in Micosoft's favor
and appears to foster monopoly, hinder competitive innovation, and
serve no meaningful consumer interest.
Most of us have lost our life's savings in Enron's case. And
now, we are being asked to give up our freedom of choice in
Microsoft's case.
MTC-00033418
From: PETER MENARDI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PETER MENARDI
1511 CLUBVIEW BLVD. S.
COLUMBUS, OH 43235
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Peter J. Menardi
MTC-00033419
From: Don Dome
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Dome
40 Sherry Road
Cincinnati, OH 45251-4269
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30086]]
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 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,
Don Dome
MTC-00033420
From: Ronald Schildroth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Schildroth
24658 Q Ave.
Grundy Center, Ia 50638-8519
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ronald Schildroth
MTC-00033421
From: charles Sellon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
charles Sellon
15 Minchin Dr.
Wooburn, MA 01801
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charles A. Sellon
MTC-00033422
From: peter russo, sr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
peter russo, sr
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 30087]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
peter a. russo
MTC-00033423
From: peter russo, jr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
peter russo, jr
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
peter a. russo, jr
MTC-00033424
From: patricia russo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
patricia russo
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee will work out of
Microsoft's headquarters for
[[Page 30088]]
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,
patricia agnes russo
MTC-00033425
From: patricia russo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
patricia russo
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
patricia angela russo
MTC-00033426
From: Jerome Brenner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerome Brenner
3221 Windrow Lane
Matthews, NC 28105-3938
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
G. Jerome Brenner, Jr.
MTC-00033427
From: John Grein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Grein
501 Berkey Ave
Swanville, MN 56382-0126
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) and
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to
focus their time and resources on matters of far
[[Page 30089]]
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 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,
John O. Grein
MTC-00033428
From: Christopher Plummer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I would like to submit the following as a Tunney Act comment
regarding my opposition to the proposed final judgement against
Microsoft: As an information technologies professional for twenty
years I have observed the rise of Microsoft and noted with concern
many of its anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, only some
of which have been addressed by the DOJ case.
In general I am convinced that the remedy proposed will not
prevent Microsoft from unfairly maintaining its monopoly, not stop
it from thwarting competition and innovation in the computer and
every other industry it touches, and will not in the end prevent
Microsoft from harming consumers by hindering their choices in the
marketplace.
The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions, Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms
currently used by Microsoft, Fails to Prohibit Intentional
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft, Fails to Prohibit
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs, and as currently written
appears to lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
Please go back to the drawing board and come up with a remedy
that will actually protect and benefit consumers!
Thank you,
Christopher Plummer
Lotus Notes Administrator
Independent Contractor
Flemington, NJ USA
MTC-00033429
From: Mark Ball
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/25/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose acceptance of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
mark
MTC-00033430
From: WILDING Inc.
To: AttyGen Ashcroft
Date: 1/25/02 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alvin G.Wilding & Charlotte H.Wilding
P.O. Box 311
Shaw Island, WA 98286
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We would like to take this opportunity to convey our opinion
about the antitrust settlement regarding Microsoft. The United
States has always been supportive of free enterprise yet now it
seems the courts are looking to make an example of someone.
Microsoft is a huge company so they were targeted. The lawsuit is
superfluous with absolutely no basis. It has dragged on long enough
and we feel it is time it was brought to a close. Microsoft has
agreed to terms that are more than fair. They are willing to license
the internal codes to Windows, which will make it easier for other
companies to compete. They also have agreed not to retaliate against
other companies who promote or produce software or hardware that
competes with Microsoft.
There are many other terms that Microsoft has agreed to that
simply should have been asked in the first place. If litigation is
allowed to continue it would be a waste of time and money. There are
more pressing matters that the court should focus its attention on.
I hope that this matter is settled soon.
Sincerely,
Alvin G.Wilding
Charlotte H.Wilding
MTC-00033431
From: William Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:09am
Subject: Approve the Microsoft Settlement
William Peters
13314 10th Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98125
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
Approve the Microsoft Settlement
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30090]]
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,
William G. Peters
MTC-00033432
From: Mark Ball
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/25/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I oppose adoption of the proposed Microsoft settlement. The
proposed settlement does not limit or reverse the monopolistic
practices that brought the trial. Furthermore, the proposed
settlement grants Microsft rights that, history will show, Microsoft
will use to expand its monopoly under the protection of the
settlement.
I see a strong structural remedy as the only means to prevent
Microsft's monopoly from expanding into other lines of business. A
structural remedy must be such that anticompetitive behavior
directed at competitors will harm Microsoft equity as a natural
consequence of a capital market. Most likely, this would mean that
Microsoft must be divided so that post-Microsoft entities will be on
equal footing as current Microsoft competitors.
Furthermore, I see continued goverment monitoring as impotent. I
suggest that the settlement grant non-Microsoft entities who must do
business with Microsoft due to Microsoft monopoly the right to sue
for and recover damages when Microsoft makes unfavorable changes to
their relationship due to the non-Microsoft entity's utilization of
non-Microsoft software.
Mark Ball
MTC-00033433
From: Susan Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:15am
Subject: Approve the Microsoft Settlement
Susan Peters
13314 10th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Susan Peters
MTC-00033434
From: Christopher Albright
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christopher Albright
P.O. Box 442
Harvey, LA 70059-0442
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
[[Page 30091]]
Sincerely yours,
Christopher Albright
MTC-00033435
From: Denise (038) Jim Nice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Denise & Jim Nice
3801 Montevista Rd.
Cleveland Heights, OH 44121-1612
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033436
From: Martha Spielman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. Our
Fort Gibson Chamber of Commerce is comprised of 70 members, so I
speak, representing their voice.
Respectfully,
Fort Gibson Chamber of Commerce
Martha Spielman, Executive Director
P.O. Box 730
Fort Gibson, OK 74434-0730
CC:
Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033437
From: Ken Wheeler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken Wheeler
1580 Hanwood Drive
McConnelsville, OH 43756-9592
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ken Wheeler
MTC-00033438
From: Stephanie Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephanie Smith
518 Treetop Dr Apt 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30092]]
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 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,
Stephanie Smith
MTC-00033439
From: Michael (038) Sally Pickett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Michael & Sally Pickett
963 Morello Ave.
Martinez, CA 94553-4749
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033440
From: Ferol & Joan Baskett
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ferol & Joan Baskett
7338 S.E. Berryton Rd.
Berryton, KS 66409-9601
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ferol & Joan Baskett
MTC-00033441
From: Donald Fogg
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Fogg
16 Governors Terrace
Lancaster, NH 03584
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30093]]
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 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,
Donald A Fogg
MTC-00033442
From: Francis Gallagher, Jr
To: Ashcroft John
Date: 1/25/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
Francis Gallagher
504 Truman Court
Norristown, PA 19403
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case for a while
now, and I have become concerned of late that the settlement reached
last November will not stand. Nine plaintiff states are currently
seeking to overturn the agreement and reopen the Microsoft case.
This is foolishly unnecessary. I do not believe the settlement
reached is unfair, nor do I believe that Microsoft and the Justice
Department should be forced back into a time-consuming, expensive
court battle when a perfectly reasonable settlement has already been
reached. The Department of Justice has, I believe, done an exemplary
job in satisfying the demands of antitrust legislation and
formulating terms of agreement that are beneficial both to Microsoft
and its competitors. Such a difficult task should not have to be
repeated unnecessarily.
Microsoft has agreed to a broad range of obligations in the
settlement, all of which allow its competitors access to the Windows
operating system and protect them from retaliation on the part of
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to provide third
parties acting under the terms of the agreement with a license to
applicable intellectual property rights. Microsoft has also agreed
to license the Windows operating system and all its products to
twenty of the largest computer makers. I do not believe any more
needs to be required of Microsoft, nor do I believe that competing
software makers have been left holding the short end of the stick.
Everyone can benefit from this agreement, and this is why I cannot
support those who feel that the settlement needs to be overturned
and further modifications made.
Sir, the settlement reached prevents Microsoft from further
violations of antitrust laws. I see no reason to take additional
action on the federal level. I urge you and your office to allow
business to return to normal and to let November's settlement carry
through.
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
Sincerely,
Francis Gallagher
MTC-00033443
From: frank senko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
frank senko
535 Gilford Ave.
Toms River, NJ 08753-8234
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
frank p. senko
MTC-00033444
From: Constance Root
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constance Root
8472 Maplewood Lane
Lenexa, KS 66215
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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,
[[Page 30094]]
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 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,
Constance J Root
MTC-00033445
From: Sharon Foley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Foley
1609 South Lee St.
Lakewood, CO 80232
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Sharon Foley
MTC-00033446
From: Elizabeth Beyne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Beyne
521 Oak Street
Marquette, MI 49855
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
E F Beyne
MTC-00033447
From: Margie O. Easter
[[Page 30095]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margie O. Easter
849 Knollwood village
Southern Pines, NC 28387-3007
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Margie O. Easter
MTC-00033448
From: Ronald Carlen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Carlen
4 Skyview Road
Wayne, NJ 07470-6283
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ronald J. Carlen
MTC-00033449
From: Patricia Beck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Patricia Beck
6699 Capricorn Ln. NE
Bremerton, WA 98311-7953
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033450
From: erin larsen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
[[Page 30096]]
erin larsen
600 sw kenyon st #d302
seattle, wa 98106
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
erin larsen
MTC-00033451
From: Charlie Dromgoole
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Charlie Dromgoole
P. O. Box 2281
Abilene, TX 79604-2281
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033452
From: Thomas McCartney
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas McCartney
2114 C.R. 442
La Veta, Co 81055-9658
January 25, 2002 Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would
like to express my support for the revised proposed Final
Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas F. McCartney
MTC-00033453
From: Jack A Milavic
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack A Milavic
650 Jubilee Street
Melbourne, Fl 32940
[[Page 30097]]
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse.:
I would like to strongly express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jack A. Milavic
MTC-00033454
From: Alice Egland
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Egland
131 Hawthorne Court
Rockaway, NJ 07866
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Alice Egland
MTC-00033455
From: Chester A. Phillips, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chester A. Phillips, Jr.
712 Foxtail Court
Naples, FL 34104-5103
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30098]]
an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 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,
Chester A. Phillips, Jr. M.D.
MTC-00033456
From: Shirley Tomich
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Shirley Tomich
1142 West 15th Street
San Pedro, CA 90731-3826
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033457
From: Walter Glatz
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Glatz
7200 Walton Road
Walton Hills, Oh 44146
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Walter Glatz
MTC-00033458
From: Gerry Cairns
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerry Cairns
26 Millport Drive
The Woodlands, Tx 77382
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee
will work out of
[[Page 30099]]
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,
Gerry Cairns
MTC-00033459
From: Helen Orr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Orr
6108 Lafreniere St.
Metairie, La 70003-3641
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Helen Orr
MTC-00033460
From: Christian S. Young
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christian S. Young
16007 Fontaine Aveneu
Austin, TX 78734-2644
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Christian S. Young
MTC-00033461
From: John Standal
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Standal
440 Hao Street
Honolulu, HI 96821
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
[[Page 30100]]
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
John Standal
MTC-00033462
From: clayton patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
clayton patterson
3420 ellenmere drive
sacramento, ca 95821-6212
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
clayton patterson
MTC-00033463
From: Alan Lane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan Lane
2931 Pine Cone Circle
Clearwater, Fl 33760
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30101]]
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,
Alan Lane
MTC-00033464
From: Fred H. Greenwood
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/25/02 8:24pm
Subject: RE'' Microsoft Settlement
BlankDear General Ashcroft:
Please read the attached letter.
Thank you, and sincerely yours,
Fred H. Greenwood
FRED H. GREENWOOD
7 Kirkwood Road, West Hartford, CT 06117-2830
TEL (860) 232-7894
E-mail: [email protected]
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
Dear General Ashcroft:
The purpose of my letter is to express my support for Microsoft
in the three-year antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a company that I
admire, and whose products I use daily, both for my business as well
as in my private life. Microsoft has contributed a great deal to our
society and daily lives; stifling this company will not benefit
anyone. I urge you to support the settlement reached in November. I
also think it is disgusting that Mr. Blumenthal and several other
states'' Attorney Generals are still pursuing this case.
This settlement is fair and reasonable. 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
included within Windows. Microsoft also has agreed to document and
disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are
internal to Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to be
monitored for compliance. In my opinion, Microsoft has done nothing
that has hurt me as a consumer and as the owner of a small business.
Since a settlement has been reached between both parties, I see
no reason to prolong this dispute. Our nation's resources,
especially at this time, should be devoted to more important issues.
I think that you, personally, as well as your staff, are doing a
great job for our country! Thank you for your support.
Sincerely yours,
Fred H. Greenwood
C:-bswin-bste
mp/microsof.doc
MTC-00033465
From: Frank N. Peterson
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
The case against Microsoft has dragged on long enough. It needs
to be settled and I think the agreement reached is reasonable. It is
now the responsibility of the DOJ to get AOL and the other states
holding out to drop their complaints.
My experience with computers is limited but the worst possible
service I have tried to use came from AOL. It was unreliable and
difficult to use. When I shifted to Microsoft programs and service,
it was like night and day. Whatever Microsoft did produced a
superior, easy to use product and my ability to expand my computer
use was enhanced.
The gripes by AOL (hardly a minor player when it comes to
monopolies) and Oren Hatch as well as others, seem to be petty
because they are losers in the creativity related to the world of
computing.
In short, it is time to move forward--not to drag this on
further. Enough damage has been done already by the Department of
Justice in fostering the lawsuit. Settle it now and let the players
see how creative they can be. There is plenty of room for innovation
for all parties.
Sincerely,
Frank N. Peterson.
MTC-00033466
From: David Greenwood
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 5:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Greenwood
12 East View DRive
Farmington, Ct 06032
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
David Greenwood
MTC-00033467
From: Gregory LeDuc
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory LeDuc
95 Church Street
Harwich, Ma 02645
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30102]]
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 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,
Gregory J. LeDuc
MTC-00033468
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft vs. DofJ Settlement
January 26, 2002
To Whom It May Concern;
As a citizen and, most importantly, a veteran, voter and
taxpayer I cannot understand why the DoJ is still wasting the
taxpayers money and its valuable time. The Microsoft settlement is
the face-saving end to a wholly unconstitutional, politically
corrupt attack on this successful business. The depths of corruption
displayed by the previous Administration in falsely bringing on this
suit are, forever, a blight on this nation's integrity.
The present Administration and its DoJ representatives bring
nothing but disgrace and contempt on themselves for pursuing this
frivolous action even to the extent to which you have brought it
today.
Settle the damned suit and get on with real problems such as the
WAR!! A less than impressed citizen, veteran, voter and taxpayer,
Jim Bronson, KC8RBI
Frankenmuth, Michigan
MTC-00033469
From: Jim Anderson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Anderson
120 Gratiot Court
Saginaw, MI 48602
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jim D. Anderson
MTC-00033470
From: smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:00am
Subject: damage
The terrorist acts certainly damaged our economy, but in my
opinion the economy was already turning down, and it was brought on
by actions of our own Government, when IT pre-sued a major player in
our world--Microsoft. Some of that damage can be reversed by
allowing the settlement to proceed.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith
MTC-00033471
From: Champagne Lady
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/26/02 10:31 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the attached document. Thank you. Leslie Whitman
Leslie Whitman
P.O. Box 500598
Marathon, FL 33050
January 21, 2002
A.G. John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing you today in regards to Microsoft. I support this
company in the three year antitrust litigation that has gone on.
Microsoft is being wrongfully punished for being successful, and the
settlement reached in November will serve in the best public
interest.
This settlement is thorough. Among the many terms Microsoft has
agreed to, provisions such as sharing more information with other
companies will aid companies in their pursuits to compete. Microsoft
has agreed to disclose various interfaces that are part of Windows
operating systems for its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to
make available any protocols implemented in Windows operating system
on reasonable terms.
This settlement not only allows Microsoft to remain together,
but it will also foster competition. Please support this settlement
[[Page 30103]]
so Microsoft can get back to the business of designing innovative
software.
Sincerely,
Leslie Whitman
MTC-00033472
From: Francis Murray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Murray
1839 S. Abrego Dr.
Green Valley,, AZ 85614-1401
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Francis A. Murray
MTC-00033473
From: Susan Levitsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Levitsky
5 Holland Ave
Albany, NY 12205-5013
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Susan Levitsky
MTC-00033474
From: Billie Allensworth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billie Allensworth
2411 Winter Park Road
Winter Park, FL 32789-6108
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30104]]
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 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,
Billie Allensworth
MTC-00033475
From: Richard H. Skeppstrom
To: DoJ
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
In my view the settlement reached among the Department of
Justice, nine states, and Microsoft is a fair and reasonable
compromise which should be implemented with as little delay as
possible. Continuing litigation would have a negative effect on the
entire software and computer industries as it would create further
uncertainty about the future of those enterprises thus inhibiting
investment and progress. In these economic doldrums, more
uncertainty is exactly what we do not need.
Thank you for your kind attention to my concerns.
Yours truly,
Richard H. Skeppstrom
2601 Bayview Boulevard
Portsmouth, VA 23707-1504
MTC-00033476
From: Sheldon Flowers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sheldon Flowers
555 Laramie Trail
Cincinnati , OH 45215
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Sheldon R. Flowers
MTC-00033477
From: JOHN CARROLL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CARROLL
911 N TAWAS LAKE
E TAWAS, MI 48730
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
John J CarrollI would like to express my support for the revised
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30105]]
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,
JOHN J CARROLL
MTC-00033478
From: Verne Robinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Verne Robinson
226 W. Works
Sheridan, wy 82801
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Verne and Mary Robinson
MTC-00033479
From: Ralph Lennerth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Lennerth
6107 Boston Rd.
Valley City , Oh 44280
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ralph Lennerth
MTC-00033480
From: Walter Knoepfel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Knoepfel
1723 Sanchez St
San Francisco, CA 94121-2740
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. After reviewing the
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit, the Department of Justice and
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater
significance. 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: Microsoft,
[[Page 30106]]
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,
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 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.
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,
Walter P. Knoepfel
MTC-00033481
From: Ward K. Wilkinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ward K. Wilkinson
4206 Hockaday Dr.
Dallas, Tx 75229
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ward K. Wilkinson
MTC-00033482
From: Ronald Zacharek
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Zacharek
1019 E. Knox Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85719
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ronald Zacharek
MTC-00033483
From: Bluebell Standal
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bluebell Standal
440 Hao Street
Honolulu, HI 96821
[[Page 30107]]
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dr. Bluebell R. Standal
MTC-00033484
From: Otto Zuber
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Otto Zuber
1660 Pine Valley Dr
Fort Myers, FL 33907-5754
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Otto Zuber
MTC-00033485
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Verifying you as cosigner of Open Letter to DOJ
In <[email protected]>, on 01/
25/2002 at 10:54 PM, [email protected] said:
Thanks for joining my open letter to the DOJ!
To make sure nobody is using your email account without
permission, I
need you to reply to this message and fill in the following
fields
as you would like them to appear in the open letter:
Name: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
City: Annandale
State: Virginia
Title:
Organization: Atid/2
I encourage you, if you have not already done so, to send a
quick
note directly to the DOJ by fax or email (see
http://www.kegel.com/remedy for how) summing up your point of
view
and endorsing my open letter.
I've already sent a message to DOJ outlining my concerns and
what I believe to be the minimum acceptable remedy. I've cc'd them
on this since I did not mention your open letter in my comments.
Please understand that while I endorse everything in your letter,
and gladly offer my name in support, it did not address all of my
concerns, so I felt that it was appropriate to send my message on
its own.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
MTC-00033486
From: Richard Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Martin
2018 W. Niobe Ave
Anaheim, CA 92804
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than
[[Page 30108]]
$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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard C. Martin
MTC-00033487
From: kenneth bridgers
To: USDOJ.GOV.,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
dear sir,
i am 69 years old and have had a computer for 2 years and
enjoying it. the windows system has enabled me to learn, i would
never learn using the ms-dos system. if i had computers with windows
system when i was in grade school i would have been an A student !
this settlement could mean that some underprivledged students may be
the ones that solve some of the worlds'' problems.
please do not penalize microsoft for building a better mouse
trap. i beleave most people want these lawsuits to end so that
microsoft and the other hi-tech companies can lead this economy
forward.
thank you for your time,
kenneth r. bridgers
188 louise street
bridge city, texas 77611
MTC-00033488
From: Leonard Biederman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard Biederman
6162 Westerham Rd.
Mayfield Hts., OH 44124-3308
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Leonard Biederman
MTC-00033489
From: Marjorie Barraclough
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Barraclough
4451 Lewistown, PA 17044
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30109]]
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
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,
Marjorie E. Barraclough
MTC-00033490
From: Craig Hammargren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Hammargren
2748 Cobblestone Court
Fargo, ND 58103
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Craig Hammargren
MTC-00033491
From: Howard B Lewine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Settlement
Gentlemen.
Please be advised as a Senior Citizen and long time user of
Microsoft's software, I urge you to implement the proposed antitrust
settlement. Sincerely, Howard Lewine
MTC-00033492
From: SJ Worrall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
The settlement proposed by The DOJ certainly does not contribute
to the economy of the country and in my opionion represents a huge
(tax supported) group of lawyers seeking to justify their jobs.
Settle the D--- lawsuit and let Microsoft get on with their job
of creating software, advancing the economy of the the country and
making profit. Competition is good. Microsoft certainly does not and
never has had a monopoly. The industry moves too fast for that to
happen.
S.J. Worrall
MTC-00033493
From: Betty Scheid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please allow the market to function in its normal way and halt
any further litigation in this matter. The events surrounding this
case have mainly served to enrich a gaggle of lawyers while bringing
down a very productive segment of our economy. It is time to put a
stop to the whole ugly mess and the sooner, the better.
B. J. Scheid
Citizen
MTC-00033494
From: E W Dreier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MTC-00033495
From: Gregory Liban
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 6:28pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
Please leave Microsoft alone. I constantly sense that people are
seeking revenge against Microsoft in a mistaken way. Microsoft is
not a Tobacco company whose products have caused cancer. Microsoft
is also not a company whom has thrived because it squeezes out
competition just for the sake of market share.
Microsoft wants to give a Billion dollars worth of Computer
equipment to those who need it, and whose side does the government
take. Gee, not with those whom might need the computers, but with
Microsoft's competitors! So where is the cancer here? Now, because
its competitors aren't happy, they want to question the very
decision of the court and the precepts of the decision in the
Microsoft case. Come on; let's get our thinking hats on straight.
What is deciding the decision of all the Microsoft issues? Is it
poor competition, or poor politics? What is the cancer here? Has
government killed the cancer, or is it feeding the cancer? Perhaps
the government needs to take a couple of steps back and really
figure out what is going on.
Why can't half the automation equipment purchased by Microsoft
come from its competitors like Linux, Sun or BeOS. I can answer
that! It's because it doesn't meet the need of the common user. Duh?
Apple is a niche product--or at least its in many of the
schools. Gee, why can't Apple be called a monopoly? Perhaps the
government needs to spur across-the-board automation industry growth
in non-legal means. I enjoy Microsoft products and they provide jobs
to millions of people in the computer industry. Moreover,
[[Page 30110]]
Microsoft leads the industry in innovation and meeting the
consumer's needs. Don't disrupt a company that helps all of us in so
many needs. Moreover, I ask that you don't listen to all the voices
that shout Microsoft hatred!
Being a politician or someone in political office isn't always
popular. I know because I work in the Federal Government. But, we
are always entitled to make good decisions based upon the best
available information. Good or bad, easy or hard.
Sincerely,
Gregory Liban
6100 East Rancier Avenue
Lot #349
Killeen, TX 76543-8897
MTC-00033496
From: Michael Emery
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement M
ichael Emery
21257 Del Oro Road
Apple Valley, Ca 92308-7746
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Michael A. Emery
MTC-00033497
From: Robert P. Clark, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert P. Clark, Jr.
200 W. 34th Ave., #344
Anchorage, AK 99503-3969
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Robert P. Clark, Jr.
MTC-00033498
From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 9:09pm
Subject:
Message-ID: <009101cla6f0$c7e107e0$e30d389d
@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: ``Van Van''
To:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:09:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=''
_NextPart_000008C_01C1A6AD.B98E5370''
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_008C_01C1A6A
D.B98E5370
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=``iso-8859-1''
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe that the settlement of the United States of America
vs. Microsoft Corporation is in the best interest of the American
public and should be accepted by the District Court. I admit that it
is difficult to ascertain the
[[Page 30111]]
minute details of the settlement. I would have preferred a document
in laymen's terms published on the DOJ website that detailed the
finer points of the document including the impact of said settlement
for the American public. Instead, I had to gather as much
information as I could from reading the briefs as well as seek out
supplemental documents to reinforce my understanding.
I believe this settlement is in the best public interest for
several reasons. First and foremost, I believe the settlement to be
fair for all parties--restricting Microsoft from certain
practices but allowing for entrepreneurial innovation so that the
industry may progress unabated. The most important point to note is
that we cannot stifle competitiveness nor creativity while we reign
in behaviors and actions. We must ensure that the consumer benefits
from this settlement and I believe that they do.
Second, this case has gone on for quite a while and consumes
resources, both from the US government as well as Microsoft. Putting
an end to this will result in freed up resources to do other things
that is beneficial to the American public. For the government, it
might be diverting these millions of dollars towards litigation to
other areas such as Homeland Security. For Microsoft, it may mean
diverting these same legal fees to perhaps making better products or
reducing cost for the consumer. On both fronts, the benefits are
significant and immediately impactful.
Third, in the light of recent events, including the burst of the
Internet bubble, the US economy weakening, the September 11th
attack, the War Against Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the
American public has enough to deal with. When one compares the
September 11th incident with this case, there is absolutely no
comparison. Though this case is very important and does affect the
American public, recent events have relegated this case to a second
class citizen at best, which is a good thing considering the more
important and urgent needs of this country. Continuing this case
will only burden the American public and interest. Putting this down
and allowing the country to focus on other more important issues
will give this country more of a chance to quickly get back on our
feet and move on from the many disappointments of these past few
years and hopefully move into a much brighter and prosperous era for
us all.
It no longer matters who is right and who is wrong. What matters
is that at the end of the day, the American interest is preserved
and the American public is protected. I believe the best way to do
this is to move on from this case--accept the settlement and
move on.
As an ancient Chinese saying illustrates--what happens when
two boulders try to prove to each other that one is stronger by
crushing people between them? It didn't really matter in the
end--no one was alive to talk about it.
All jest aside, I hope this illustrates that ultimately we are
all working for the best of the American people. Let's make sure
that happens. Let's focus on the really important things in life.
Let's move on from this matter.
Humbly yours,
Van C. Van
MTC-00033499
From: Marjorie Stump
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Stump
917 Hwy 20 N
Thermopolis, WY 82443
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mrs. Marjorie Stump
MTC-00033500
From: Marjorie Ryan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Ryan
1448 Larson Road
Roseburg, OR 97470-9773
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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.
[[Page 30112]]
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,
Marjorie L. Ryan
MTC-00033501
From: Jane Williford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/26/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Jane Williford
142 Aycock Drive
Goldsboro, NC 27530-9500
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033502
From: Eleanor Klar
To: Atty Gen Aschccroft
Date: 1/26/02 11:51pm
Subject: RE:Microsoft Settlement
11211 E Springfield Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
There has recently been a settlement to the antitrust lawsuit
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. While I do not
agree with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft Corporation, I am
happy to see that a settlement has been reached. The United States
government needs to move on and worry about more important issues.
Microsoft will now be working much closer and communicating much
more with their competitors. They will be giving their competitors
code and other information that makes-up the Windows operating
system. They will also be allowing their competitors to remove
Microsoft-made software from Windows, and replace it with non-
Microsoft software. Enough is enough. Microsoft agreed to terms that
extend well beyond what was issue in the initial suit, just for the
sake of ending this senselessness. I support this settlement and
would like to see it implemented as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Kiar
MTC-00033503
From: MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.
P.O.BOX 21197
HOUSTON, TX 77226
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.
MTC-00033504
From: Mtume Imani
To: Justice Department
Date: 1/27/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Justice Department:
This e-mail is to add my voice to the settlement of the
Microsoft case before you. The public and consumer interest has been
very well served, and the time to end this costly and damaging
litigation has come. I do not want the special interests to defeat
the public interest in this case. The proposed settlement offers a
reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and
all Americans to access the InterNet and use innovative software
products to make our computer experience easier and more enjoyable.
I RAISE MY VOICE--STOP THE SELF-SERVING, PUNITIVE LOBBYING
NOW. SET
MICROSOFT FREE!
Member--The Seniors Coalition
MTC-00033505
From: Elisha Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:00am
[[Page 30113]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elisha Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Elisha Nall
MTC-00033506
From: Vickie Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vickie Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Vickie Nall
MTC-00033507
From: Nathan Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nathan Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30114]]
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a
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,
Nathan Nall
MTC-00033508
From: Richard Roullard and Shirley Roberts
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Roullard
562 Basil Road
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a user of Microsoft products, I'm writing to voice my support
for the recent settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice
Department. I feel that the settlement is reasonable and benefits
all of us. For example, Microsoft has agreed to open up its
operating system to allow computer makers to remove Microsoft
products and install competing products in their places. Microsoft
has also agreed that they won't take any action against computer
makers that choose to ship or develop competing operating systems.
Based on these facts, I encourage you to support this
settlement. Ultimately, the competitive environment this settlement
encourages will benefit consumers and our economy.
Sincerely,
Richard Roullard
MTC-00033509
From: Harry Moore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Moore
P.O.Box 2180
Atascadero, CA 93423-2180
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Harry J. Moore
MTC-00033510
From: Dorothy Jansen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Jansen
8507 Wentworth Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55420-2253
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30115]]
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,
Dorothy Jansen
MTC-00033511
From: Thomas Prantner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Prantner
8350Aldrich Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55420-2259
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Tom Prantner
MTC-00033512
From: norman davis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
norman davis
123 Marmora road
parsippany, nj 07054
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Norman T. Davis
MTC-00033513
From: William Ransom
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Ransom
1616 Ocean Dr., Apt. 307
Vero Beach, Fl 32963
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 30116]]
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 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
W. R. Ransom
MTC-00033514
From: Walter Schmidt
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/27/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-307-1454--202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
Microsoft continues in its role as a leader in the Information
Technology industry. They do this not by luck, but because they are
the best at what they do. Microsoft has given us, the business user,
the ability to do things we only dreamt of a decade ago. They have
done this efficiently and effectively, while at the same time their
products have developed a network of satisfied users.
It appears other companies are now trying to take advantage of
Microsoft's current situation because they are unable to accomplish
on their own what Microsoft has successfully done. To continue
litigation, already agreed to by the Department of Justice, nine
states and Microsoft, would prove to be a waste of time and money.
As an Information Technologies CPA, I continue to use Microsoft
products as part of my day-to-day work routine. I do this after an
ever continuing and exhaustive review of available products, and
because I feel that they continue to be the best, the market has to
offer.
The settlement currently under review is fair. Microsoft has
agreed to terms that will allow other companies to be better
equipped to compete. So far, the passage of time without litigation
resolution has caused little harm. Nevertheless, this issue needs to
be resolved before it does do serious harm to either Microsoft, the
Information Technologies industry, or our country's economy. I would
hope the Justice Department feels the same way, sees that the
proffered settlement is indeed in the public interest, and submits
its final report, recommending acceptance of the settlement.
Sincerely,
Walter C. Schmidt, CPA
383 Second Avenue
Massapequa Park, NY 11762
516.799.8300
Cc: Microsoft
FAX: 800-641-2255
Email: [email protected]
CC:Microsoft,Walter Schmidt
MTC-00033515
From: Henrietta Conway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henrietta Conway
571 Oak Park Way
Emerald Hills, CA 94062
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Henrietta Conway
MTC-00033516
From: IAN J. PATTERSON
To: Department Of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 4:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To Whom It May Concern,
YES: I firmly believe that settlement between Microsoft, the
Justice Department and bipartisan groups of State Attorneys General
in the original antitrust case IS in the best interest of our Great
Nation.
I also believe that special interest groups/parties consumed
with envy, jealousy, unearned potential personal gain, have
``piled on '' the anti-trust case in a most unpatriotic
way. Thankfully they are a pitiful minority! The predjudiced
behavior of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during this sad saga has
been most dismaying to say the least!
The vast majority of States representing The American People
want settlement!
LET'S MOVE ON !!
IT WILL BENEFIT US AND COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD!!!
Sincerely,
Ian J. Patterson
3423 181st PL NE
[[Page 30117]]
Redmond WA 98052
(I'm NOT a Microsoft employee, but hope we restore their FULL
FREEDOM TO INNOVATE REAL SOON.)
MTC-00033517
From: Donald Helgeson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Helgeson
2008 Roundleaf Green
Huntsville, AL 35803-1832
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald V. Helgeson
MTC-00033518
From: Edwin Webster
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin Webster
69 Red Dog Rd.
Winthrop, WA 98862
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
E.H.Webster
MTC-00033519
From: Beverly Riese
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Beverly Riese
2608 West 3rd
Hastings, Ne 68901-4615
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30118]]
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
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,
Beverly Riese
MTC-00033520
From: M. June Poff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M. June Poff
P.O. Box 776
Helendale, CA 92342
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
M. June Poff
MTC-00033521
From: Carl Schoettler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Schoettler
1706 SE 10th Place
Cape Coral, FL 33990-4503
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Carl A. Schoettler
MTC-00033522
From: Thomas Krolosky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Krolosky
500 Rose Ave.
Long Beach, Ca 90802
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
[[Page 30119]]
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas J. Krolosky
MTC-00033523
From: Mary Mulloy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Mulloy
500 Rose Ave.
Long Beach, Ca 90802
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mary Ann Mulloy
MTC-00033524
From: Dan Marinescu
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Best Regards,
Dan Marinescu
CC: Microsoft ATR
Dan Marinescu
200 Button Street, Unit 84D
Santa Cruz, California 95060
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I have worked in the IT industry for several years and recently
became certified as a Systems Engineer. I am very excited about my
field, because it has allowed me the opportunity to grow with the
rapidly changing industry. During my time in this industry I have
had the opportunity to truly admire different companies for what
their efforts have done to improve the IT industry. Microsoft is one
such company. From the very beginning, Microsoft took the lead in
the game with solid innovation that resulted in high-quality
products that are easily accessible to consumers at very reasonable
prices. I admire Microsoft because they exemplify success.
It is sad to see that they are now being punished for the same
some success that help build the country's IT industry. This is
shameful betrayal of the spirit of free enterprise! I am writing to
ask that you do all that is within your power to end this matter. I
believe that terms of the settlement were well reviewed, are fair,
and should be formalized as soon as possible and release Microsoft
to spread its wings of innovation once again. Looking at the
concessions that Microsoft has already made--releasing
protocols, code, and intellectual property--it is fair to
assume that their will be no further antitrust violations.
So please wrap this up. The public is counting on you.
Sincerely,
Dan Marinescu
MTC-00033525
From: Swasti Sarna
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 7:01pm
Public input is always an important thing for major issues that
serve and were meant to be made for the population. Many people
think that Microsoft should not be allowed to
[[Page 30120]]
settle with Netscape because Microsoft is constantly causing
monopolies, and without finally being seriously and fairly punished,
the company may be unable to ever quit their nasty habit. Netscape
should sue Microsoft for a reasonable amount of money, and Microsoft
should resolve Netscape's problem by performing some sort of a task
for Netscape's benefit in addition to paying them money.
As you may know, many historical events have happened involving
monopolies. Historical events include when AT&T controlled all
phone services in the United States. People thought this was unfair
so the courts split it up and new businesses formed such as Pacific
Bell and long distance phone services started like Sprint and MCI.
Another example of a past major monopoly was with the oil companies,
which also had to be broken up. A very common one was with the
railroads. The Supreme Court said, and everyone should have this
perspective of benefit to the people, was: The Supreme Court
established the governments right to regulate businesses and to
protect public interests.? All these events had many different good
ideas to resolve their problems, and monopolies with these companies
never happened again. Overall, Microsoft definitely should be
punished and should not be allowed to settle with Netscape.
MTC-00033526
From: Wilson Kown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wilson Kown
25 Mission Hills Drive, SW
Cartersville, GA 30120-7451
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Wilson Kown
MTC-00033527
From: Jeff Loether
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Settle already and let's get on with it.
The only way trying to de-monopolize Microsoft would make sense
is if it would also be applied to Apple which, of course, would kill
the company. And it doesn't make sense. Microsoft isn't a company
with a conspiracy; or a cult of some sort; it is a group of smart
young people who are trying their hardest to make the computing
experience as awesome as they possibly can. I am in awe at the
intelligence and service that the integration of environment,
application, and Internet can provide, as demonstrated with XP.
Encourage competition to catch up; don't hobble the lead horse.
And, for the record, I do not own any Microsoft stock, I know
nobody who works there, and can't yet imagine any way of personal
gain, if Microsoft succeeds or fails.
All the Best,
Jeff Loether, President
Electro-Media Design, Ltd.
AudioVisual and Acoustical Consulting
vox: (301) 309-0110
fax: (301) 309-0039
www.electro-media.com
MTC-00033528
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
27 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation
antitrust case. I wish to state how disappointed I am in US Atty.
Gen. John Ashcroft, Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan, and all the other
states'' attys. general in this extremely weak and poor
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation.
With their track record of poor products and their quashing of
almost every possible threat to their monopoly (such as the cases
with Netscape and their pending litigation against Lindows),
Microsoft has acted against the public's welfare and has cost the
economy great quantities of productivity. For example, assuming a
user base of one million users who must endure one crash of their
Microsoft OS, a 240 day work-year of 8 hour work-days and an average
salary of $22,500, those unscheduled coffee breaks cost a total of
over $29,000,000 per annum in lost productivity. This amount does
not take into account the time needed to recreate lost works in
progress or delays to customer inquiries because of the delays.
I also wish to add that I am in full agreement with the
statements of Dan Kegel, located online at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html ; Jeremy P. White, CEO of CodeWeavers, Inc,
located online at http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html
; and the Free Software Foundation, located online at http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html.
Any settlement with Microsoft is unsatisfactory. This company,
and its management, need to be punished much more severely than this
settlement possibly would.
Sincerely,
Andrew Valkanas
2523 W Farwell Ave
Chicago IL 60645
MTC-00033529
From: James Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a concerned citizen, I wish to offer comment concerning the
proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft.
I am a civilian employee of an agency of the United States
Government, where my job function is the administration of a network
of personal computers and the technical support of the users of
those computers.
[[Page 30121]]
However, I offer the following comments purely as a private citizen,
without the encouragement or even the knowledge of my employer.
I have been an interested observer of the computer industry in
various capacities for more than twenty years, and have been
professionally involved in the industry for ten. In that time I have
seen the development of the industry from a perspective rather
different from that usually discussed. My experience is that of
someone who has directly used the technology and helped others to
use the technology, working alongside both the users of that
technology and others whose professional duties were similar to my
own. These experiences have taught me several things which I am
compelled to share.
First: The case of United States v. Microsoft is almost
certainly one of the most important cases of all time, for how this
is resolved will have repercussions certain to outlive anyone of
this generation now participating in the actual case.
What is at stake is not merely the future practices of one
corporation, or even the future structure of one industry. What is
at stake is nothing less than the nature of access to information,
from the individual citizen to the largest private and public
institutions.
Many years ago, I heard of a Jesuit philosopher who had written
about an idea he called the ``knowlosphere.'' He imagined
that as more and more information was transmitted via computer
technology, there would arise around the earth a sort of
``sphere of knowledge'' that would surround the earth the
same way the atmosphere does, and that there would come a point in
which the essential sum total of all human knowledge would exist
within this sphere. Furthermore, this would eventually become so
important to the lives of people that it would become impossible to
switch off once switched on. Though he imagined this in terms of
communications satellites (the highest technology available to him
at the time), I maintain that a world of personal computers all
connected via the worldwide Internet is the true realization of this
vision.
We must now ask ourselves this question: do we wish to allow,
indeed do we dare allow, the fundamental infrastructure of human
knowledge and thought to become in practice (if not directly in law)
the private commercial domain of one corporation?
Second: Microsoft already monopolizes several areas of computer
technology, and is working hard to monopolize others.
This point seems hardly worth discussing, because as I write
this, the courts have repeatedly ruled that Microsoft is indeed a
monopoly and is guilty of breaking the law. What is more interesting
is that to this very day, I am unaware of any admission Microsoft
has ever offered, to anyone at any time, that it has been found
guilty of breaking any law. Indeed, only within the last few months
has it acknowledged in any public statements that any court rulings
went against it, and vaguely at that.
Third: Microsoft has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted
even with the level of power it enjoys today.
Microsoft portrays all concern over its power and actions as
solely the product of disgruntled competitors. While even that would
justify intervention if the competitors were disgruntled because of
actions which broke the law (as the courts have repeatedly ruled was
in fact the case), what is more significant is Microsoft's actions
not against its competition but against its own customers.
Consider that under the First Amendment, I have the legal right
to criticize my government, perhaps even harshly so, and I may even
do so in a forum sponsored by that same government. The courts have
interpreted this right to extend further; for instance, I may use a
telephone and still criticize whatever company provides my telephone
service. But I may NOT utilize Microsoft products to criticize
Microsoft. This is not a paranoid fantasy, it is a direct reading of
clauses in the licenses of several of their products, which
explicitly forbid one to ``criticize or disparage Microsoft
and/or its products and/or services.'' Indeed one license
actually forbids the ``parody'' of Microsoft products and
services.
Microsoft demands that companies engaged in any joint ventures
waive their rights to sue Microsoft for patent infringement
``even should evidence arise that such infringement has
occurred.'' And there are more additional examples than I have
time to list, of Microsoft using the courts to squelch criticism and
then thumbing its nose at the courts when they issue rulings
Microsoft does not wish.
We must now ask ourselves whether the interest of the people of
the United States is served when one company not only has the power
to behave in this manner, but actually does so, and thus far with
impunity.
Fourth: Microsoft's already dangerous power is increasing.
It has been widely noted that when the Internet first began to
become a household word, Microsoft largely ignored the whole
phenomenon. Now that Microsoft has taken notice, their objective is
nothing less than the total control of the Internet. During the time
between the filing of United States v. Microsoft and today,
Microsoft's plans to destroy Netscape (publishers of what was at the
time overwhelmingly the most widely-used browser for the World Wide
Web) have come to fruition, and they now face essentially no
competition in that area.
One has to ask why Microsoft wanted to destroy Netscape so badly
that they would give away a competing product for free. One reason
is that control of the web browser gives one control of the choke
point for information and commerce on the Internet. The other reason
is that Netscape had ambitious plans to enhance their browser and
ultimately to ``grow the browser into an operating system of
its own'' which would have threatened Microsoft's monopoly.
Perhaps such a scheme would have proved beneficial to the public,
but it was a threat to Microsoft, and like all such threats before,
could not resist Microsoft's destructive power.
Today Microsoft controls the web browser, and much evidence
exists that its ultimate plan is to take control of the basic
protocols that servers use to communicate with each other across the
Internet itself. Once that happens they will essentially have the
level of power that a company would have if they controlled all bank
ATM machines, all telephones, all newspapers, and all radio and
television stations. All access to information in any form from
anywhere at any time would generate profit for Microsoft, and be
subject to their approval.
We must now ask whether this is a desirable future for a free
people. Fifth: People like me, in the trenches, have long considered
Microsoft dangerous.
I could tell you so many stories. Just the jokes we tell to each
other betray a deepening gloom about the future. Alas, I am facing a
strict deadline for public comment and this must leave them for
another time. Sixth: The proposed settlement of United States v.
Microsoft is NOT sufficient.
It contains insufficient punishment for past transgressions of
the law, insufficient guarantees against future transgressions of
law, NO compensation for victims of those transgressions of law, and
insufficient remedies for the consequences of past transgressions of
law.
Much more needs to be said, but as the period for public comment
is ending I must draw to a close. But I cannot urge strongly enough
that this settlement NOT be accepted as is.
Sincerely,
James R. Austin
(Should this be required by law, my full address is as follows:
James R. Austin
155 Watkins Mill RD
Apt. C
Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3336)
MTC-00033530
From: Kory Hamzeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please give serious consideration to the contents of: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Sincerely,
Kory Hamzeh
West Hills, CA
MTC-00033531
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
[[Page 30122]]
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ella B Lankford
P.O. Box 266
Seneca, MO 64865-0266
MTC-00033532
From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary E. Daudelin
Date: 1/27/02 9:11pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
Comments included in body of email, in case you don't have MS
Office 2000 to read the attachment of my earlier e-mail.
Sincerely,
M. E. Daudelin
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the
Microsoft settlement, I also feel that AOL could better spend its
time in further analysis of its own product (especially with regard
to its deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this
case. My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that
full utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using
their application.
As a developer of WEB applications for research, business and
educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of browsers,
development tools and operating systems while producing and testing
my applications. Although I use Windows NT servers and take
advantage of their many development tools, such as FrontPage 2002, I
have not found that the public cannot access my applications,
regardless of their operating system and/or browser types (with the
exception of an occasional prototype). In fact, until recently,
Netscape has always been my personal choice of browser as it was the
one that introduced me fully to the Internet. And SUN's StarOffice
product has produced many graduate-school presentations for me.
Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not
use MS products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript errors
that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is that
Microsoft has some very good programmers that pay attention to
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical
excellence.
Yes, my job would be much easier if I could convince everyone on
this planet to use Microsoft Windows OS's and IE browsers, IBM
ThinkPad laptop computers, the same size/resolution monitor and to
access the Internet via cable or high-speed access, however, since
this attitude smacks of the old telecom mentality (a black rotary
phone for everyone, by God!), and because we all have our different
comfort levels, I will remain silent on that subject and continue to
jump back and forth between the plethora of computers/systems/
browsers that I access in my testing.
In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative,
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost). Beyond
the concessions contained in the settlement agreement, nothing more
should be expected or required of Microsoft at this time. I
appreciate your efforts to quickly settle this case.
Sincerely,
M.E. Daudelin
File code: msu-0-return
Electronic transmission: signature on file
----Original Message----
From: Mary E. Daudelin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Comments on the MS Case:
See attachment.
Sincerely,
M.E. Daudelin
MTC-00033533
From: Jeff Prus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:12pm
Subject: Accept the Current Microsoft Case Settlement
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like my opinion to be considered for the Microsoft case.
I believe the current settlement is fair and urge you to settle this
case now. I believe continuation of this litigation is harmful to
both the software industry and the economy.
By continuing to add features and functionality to Windows,
Microsoft has advanced the PC platform while reducing the costs to
the consumer. Furthermore, I believe that Microsoft's ability to add
features to the operating system only creates parity with other
firms that also incorporate new functionality within the operating
system itself, namely Apple's OS X and various versions of Linux. I
believe the states that continue to oppose the settlement are only
trying to achieve a settlement windfall for Microsoft competitors
within their states, however, at a significant cost to the high-tech
industry and overall economy.
That being said, I do believe that Microsoft's dominance in the
desktop PC operating system market creates a disadvantage for
competitors and thus warrants some restrictions in order for other
companies to be given a chance to compete. These include the
requirement for Microsoft to include some other companies''
products within Windows as an alternative to Microsoft products.
This requirement is covered within the existing settlement. This
continued litigation is damaging one of our countries great
corporations and I believe a fair and equitable settlement has been
proposed. As such, I urge you to settle this case now. The only
winner in this continued litigation is the legal profession.
Thanks,
Jeff Prus
[email protected]
(773) 525-1969
MTC-00033534
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
A settlement to the antitrust suit against Microsoft has finally
been reached, and I hope that it is implemented as soon as the
public comment period is over with. This proposed settlement stands
to benefit everyone involved, and best of all, allows Microsoft to
get back to helping the economy instead of wasting valuable time and
money in court.
The economy started its downward spiral the day the suit against
Microsoft was announced, and three years later we find ourselves in
a recession. Did no one realize just how important Microsoft is to
the economy? They provided tens of thousands of jobs to Americans
across the country and to people around the globe. I hope this
settlement will pave the way for the economy to get back on its
feet, and with Microsoft agreeing to work more closely with its
competitors, the market has to improve. I know there are many who
worry weather Microsoft will adhere to the terms of the settlement,
but they have no choice. An oversight committee has been set up that
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
Everything needed to improve our economy is in place. The
settlement must now be approved in order to get the ball rolling.
cc; Representative Maxine Waters
Sincerely,
Mose Tyler
MTC-00033536
From: Keith E. Folsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
My name is Keith Folsom. I am the Director of Systems and
Communications
at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. I have
been a computer professional since my graduation from college with a
Bachelor's degree in Computer Science in 1981. I have had many roles
in the field, including Software Engineer, Programmer, Systems
Administrator, and manager. My desire to stay current in a field I
really enjoy convinced me to enter an evening Master's program in
Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington in
1999. I completed this program last month, graduating with a
Master's degree.
I am writing this letter in order to urge you to consider more
far-reaching sanctions against Microsoft than those proposed, which
I feel is justified in light of the conclusion that the company is a
monopoly. It is my opinion that the sanctions as proposed will do
little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use their
monopoly power to crush competition and true innovation in the
computing industry.
I do not believe in a government that unnecessarily interferes
in the matters of
[[Page 30123]]
industry. Free enterprise and capitalism normally self-regulate. But
when a company grows too large and is no longer subject to the
normal laws of economics, a government has the duty to reign this
company in. As I've watched Microsoft gain a strangle-hold on the
computing industry, I've also seen my choice of products and
solutions dwindle. It frankly scares me. And Microsoft's latest
attempt to control the Internet with their .NET initiative convinces
me that they have not learned any lessons from the long battle
against the Justice Department in the anti-trust case. They are
determined to own it all.
Once again, I urge you to consider stronger measures against
Microsoft, up to and including splitting the company into smaller,
more fairly competitive units. I believe such measures are the only
way to prevent the computing industry from sinking into a mire of
mediocrity, with no true choice of solutions for computing problems.
This is what monopolies do unless they are stopped. Please stop
Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Keith Folsom
Keith E. Folsom
[email protected]
Director, Systems & Communications
[email protected]
Pacific Lutheran University
WWW--http://www.plu.edu/folsomke
Tacoma, Washington
PGP--/pgp.txt
MTC-00033537
From: Peter Hollings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hold an advanced degree from the Sloan School of Management,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the areas of information
technology and finance. I have over 30 years experience in these
fields, during which I have developed a deep understanding of the
processes of competition and innovation in the computer software
industry. I first became aware of Microsoft around 1982 and have
been a constant observer of that company's business practices over
the succeeding years. My purpose in writing is to express my
opposition to the proposed settlement that has been reached by the
US Department of Justice and Microsoft concerning their antitrust
suit. Not being trained in the formalities of the legal profession,
I am writing nevertheless in the hopes that you will take notice of
my objections as an American citizen, affected by this settlement,
and despite their probable formal incorrectness. I make this
expression on my personal behalf, although I firmly believe it also
reflects the interests of the businesses that I have presently or
formerly been associated with in either employment or consulting
roles. I firmly believe and respectfully request that the Court
consider:
1. That as a past and potential future purchaser of Microsoft
products, and as user of computing systems generally, that no aspect
of the proposed settlement is in my interest.
2. That I firmly believe that approval by the Court of the
proposed settlement would be bad for consumers, bad for business,
bad for innovation, bad for the beneficial functioning of market
economics, bad for constitutional rights, such as privacy and
security, and it would materially and adversely impair the public's
perception of government integrity.
3. I state my belief that the proposed settlement is so
thoroughly flawed in every aspect that I respectfully request that
the Court reject it from further consideration.
4. I respectfully request that the court give full consideration
to the filing by the American Antitrust Institute captioned as
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
This complaint sets forth numerous instances in which both the
DOJ and Microsoft have failed to comply with specific disclosure
requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
(``Tunney Act''). Most importantly are the failure of the
DOJ to provide an accounting of how the settlement reached is in the
public interest and the failure of Microsoft to fully identify its
contacts with the government relative to the settlement. I will note
here that the public press includes numerous articles relative to
Microsoft's lobbying activities relevant to the antitrust settlement
decision, none of which were included as required in Microsoft's
report in compliance of the reporting requirement. This combination
of circumstances gives the appearance that the public institutions
of the American people are being manipulated against their interests
and in a concealed way.
5. I respectfully request that the Court give full consideration
to these circumstances identified above and fully investigate and
correct any improprieties in the functioning of our government in
the interest of preserving the American people's confidence in both
the Executive and Judicial branches of our government. The proposed
settlement is such an egregiously bad agreement and so contrary to
the public interest that I cannot conceive that it was honestly
arrived at.
Thank you,
Peter Hollings
Atlanta, GA 30342
[email protected]
MTC-00033538
From: James Tracy, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please settle the Microsoft Case. It seems clear to me and many
of my friends that the settlement is in the public interest. Only
competitors can level the specious argument that Microsoft's
innovation is an antitrust violation. Let's compete in the market
place rather than litigate in the courts.
Dr. Jim Tracy
MTC-00033539
From: Kevin Bullock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
The proposed settlement with Microsoft is woefully inadequate.
It will not change their behavior as a corporation nor provide any
meaningful benefit to the public interest. Please refer to Dan
Kegel's comments at the following address: http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html
Also please take into consideration Ralph Nader and James Love's
comments at: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
Thank you.
Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
Kevin R. Bullock
MTC-00033540
From: Margaret C Worsham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I, Margaret C. Worsham, strongly urge the Justice Department to
accept the Microsoft Settlement.
The consumer interest has been well served and the time has come
to end this costly and damaging litigation
MTC-00033542
From: Paul Shryer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed
settlement between US DOJ and Microsoft.
I am a Information Technology Professional who works on a daily
basis with Microsoft software and license agreements. There are many
problems I have noticed with the Final Judgement proposed by the
DOJ, I shall mention the two greatest issues I have with this
settlement.
1. A provision is included to ``prevent Microsoft from
using Anti-competitive practices against OEM who load competing
practices.'' There is a big loophole in this provision
unfortunately. It does not prevent Microsoft from charging a set
price to all OEMs and then providing discounts and rebates to OEMs
that sell only Microsoft products or that help Microsoft extend its
monopoly into additional markets. Several companies currently use
similar agreements and programs. It would take little effort for
Microsoft to adopt similar practices.
2. This proposed final judgement does not seem to have any sort
of enforcement. While it is true that the proposal calls for a three
person panel to review the activities of Microsoft I seen nothing
that empowers the panel to do anything more than recommend to
Microsoft management. They do not seem to have any real power to
overrule management and prevent Microsoft from undertaking anti-
competitive practices.
Paul Shryer
Network Technician
Duluth, MN
MTC-00033543
From: Mark Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement fails to restore or protect competition
in the PC OS market place. It seems to legitimize MS's monopoly and
places far to much discretion in MS's hands. One need only apply the
following simple test. If MS agrees to something then
[[Page 30124]]
it must be good for MS. MS has agreed to this settlement and
therefore the settlement must be good for MS. If the settlement did
protect and foster future competition then MS would not agree to it.
It is simply a fact that MS will have to be ordered to do anything
of substance to remedy its abuses. It is very disturbing that the
DOJ has opted for expedience in place of justice and public benefit.
With real competition the price of PC operating software would be 1/
10th of today's MS prices, and quality (i.e. robustness and
security) would be years ahead of MS's current quality.
MS used its PC OS dominance to extinguish Netscape. It has been
found that this was done deliberately to protect its PC OS monopoly.
MS must not be allowed to benefit from this illegal conduct and must
be prevented from repeating such conduct in the future. The proposed
settle makes no effort to deprive MS of any benefits it accrued as a
result of illegal conduct, does nothing to mitigate the effects of
the conduct, and makes only a sheepish effort to prevent it in the
future.
I strongly urge the court to reject this settlement and hold
proper public hearings to find an effective remedy. Further, I see
the only effective and workable remedy to be structural. It will not
be possible to enforce conduct remedies with MS. It has not worked
in the past and will not work in the future.
Mark Hinds
Concerned US Citizen
Senior SW Engineer
Edmonds WA 98020
MTC-00033544
From: William Usim
To: Judge Kollar-Kotelly
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
As a consumer I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft
settlement. I believe that Judge Jackson had the only remedy that
would aid consumers.. I would prefer to purchase my computer's
operating system separate from any applications. I would like to be
able to select applications that I find have the features I need
without them being included in the operating system.
I presently run both Windows 98 and OS/2.
Thank you,
William Usim
MTC-00033545
From: john paulson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greetings,
I--oppose--the proposed settlement in the Microsoft
anti-trust case for the following reasons:
The Microsoft Office suite is one reason for the entrenchment of
the Windows operating system on personal computers. The lack of
viable non-Microsoft equivalents to MS Office is one source of that
entrenchment.
Document formats are descriptions of the files produced by the
Microsoft Office suite of products (MS Word, MS Excel, MS
Powerpoint).
Document formats are distinct from APIs. Nowhere is there a
requirement that Microsoft document and freely disclose the document
formats used by their office products.
Because the document formats are not available, developers of
products wishing to inter-operate with or compete with those of
Microsoft Office must reverse engineer the document format. Besides
being time consuming, this is an error-prone process. The resulting
products fail to work as well with the documents. In addition,
changes made by Microsoft to those document formats when new
versions of Microsoft products are released require non-Microsoft to
once again perform reverse engineering. This delays the release of
competing products, further cementing Microsoft's entrenchment in
office productivity applications.
THEREFORE:
Microsoft must document the formats of files produced by their
office productivity applications.
Microsoft must make that documentation freely available, so that
non-Microsoft products can read and write documents produced by
Microsoft's office productivity applications.
And, Microsoft must release the document format concurrently, if
not prior to, the release of newer versions of Microsoft's office
productivity applications.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business,
...''
(The above quotation is from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html) As that article states, Microsoft faces
competition from open source software, such as Linux, FreeBSD and
Samba. Microsoft should not be allowed to forbid disclosure to
asymmetric threats to its dominance.
THEREFORE:
Microsoft should release the API, Documentation and
Communications Protocols to all who ask, or make it freely available
(by placing on their website, www.microsoft.com). This will in no
way hinder Microsoft's ability to innovate and develop new products
and combinations of products, but it will allow non-Microsoft
developers to inter-operate with Microsoft products.
Microsoft has proposed deploying many millions of dollars worth
of computers and (Microsoft) software to (K-12) schools. This
should be rejected out of hand. Currently, the only meaningful
competition Microsoft has in the K-12 education marketplace is Apple
Computer. Were Microsoft to --sell-- computers running
Microsoft software to schools at discounts of 80 to 90%, it would be
viewed as an anti-competitive action by a monopolist: dumping.
Giving it away can only be worse, (mega-dumping?).
THEREFORE:
Microsoft should not be allowed to donate computers and
software. If Microsoft wishes to aid schools in this wise, it may
donate --money--and allow the educators to decide how to
spend it on computers and software.
Sincerely,
John Paulson
MTC-00033546
From: Jeff Rehbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
To Whom it May Concern:
In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on
the proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case. I believe that there are many problems with the proposed
settlement. As shown by Dan Kegel's open letter (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), there are so many holes in the
settlement that it is essentially useless. However, I will focus my
comments on a specific group of actions by Microsoft that affect my
work directly.
I work as a Macintosh game developer. My work entails both
porting games originally written for the Microsoft Windows platform
to run on the Macintosh platform, and writing original games for the
Macintosh platform. In the following paragraphs, I will show how
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions have harmed (and are continuing
to harm) me, my company's customers, and the customers of virtually
all developers of games for the Macintosh.
In 1992, OpenGL was introduced as an open standard application
programming interface (API) for 2D and 3D graphics. Over the years,
it has gained wide adoption by operating system vendors (OSV) and
graphics sub-systems hardware vendors (GSHV). Seeing that adopting
OpenGL would increase the number of games available for the Windows
platform, Microsoft adopted it. However, Microsoft only adopted it
because it didn't have a competing product.
As Microsoft has done time and time again, it quickly turned out
it's own version of someone else's innovation. In this case (as in
most cases), it's version (Direct3D) was nowhere near as good as the
original. However, Microsoft tied it to Windows (still on the same
pattern) and to its development environment and some developers used
it. Recently, Direct3D has became good enough to compete with
OpenGL. So what did Microsoft do? It removed OpenGL support from
Windows XP before release--support that was already there.
OpenGL can still be used, but the support has to be added by each
GSHV, seriously complicating the situation.
Removal of OpenGL support from Windows harms several groups of
people:
1. Developers who know and wish to use OpenGL in a Windows
application.
2. Developers who want to write 3D (and 2D) applications that
can be compiled for Windows and other operating systems from one
codebase.
3. Developers who port applications originally written for
Windows to run on other operating system (the original application
may have been written with
[[Page 30125]]
OpenGL under different circumstances, making it far easier to port)
4. In the long run, other OSVs that depend on OpenGL will likely
be harmed. This is because usage of OpenGL will drop off, which will
lead to a stagnation in the OpenGL standard.
As if removing OpenGL support from Windows wasn't enough,
Microsoft recently purchased key patents from Silicon Graphics, Inc.
that may give it even more ammunition against the competing, open
standard. I can't say for sure what Microsoft will do with this new
power, but given its past history I think it's a sure bet that it
will be bad for OpenGL, and by extension, bad for developers and
consumers. One company should not be able to so negatively affect an
open standard. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does nothing
to prevent this sort of activity. Microsoft also hurts all
developers who port Windows games to the Macintosh by keeping all
DirectX APIs usable on Windows alone. Microsof routinely changes the
API calls so that developers can't make a ``glue library''
(a glue library is used to easily convert calls to one API to calls
to different API) that can keep being used in each new project.
There is no need to so routinely change the actual interface calls
of APIs. Other OSVs do everything they can to keep those calls the
consistent. Doing otherwise would break compatibility and drive away
developers. Only a company with a monopoly could do this and
survive.
One DirectX API in particular gives port developers
trouble--DirectPlay. DirectPlay is an API that makes it
relatively easy to add networking features to a game. Because of the
lack of documentation of the internal message structure, any port of
a game originally written using DirectPlay cannot communicate with
the original version. This relegates users of the ported version to
a second-class status. Although technically possible to reverse-
engineer the protocol, Microsoft actively thwarts such attempts. The
one known instance where the protocol was reverse-engineered and
used in a product (which took 6 months), Microsoft promptly
overhauled the protocol and released a new version which completely
broke the compatibility.
Microsoft's actions with the DirectX API serve solely to
strengthen the applications barrier-to-entry, even at the expense of
their own developers. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does
absolutely nothing to alleviate this or any problems concerning this
barrier. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there is no
remedy for the above problems short of separating the OS business
from the rest of Microsoft. As show in the previous reference to Dan
Kegel's open letter and in my own, the proposed settlement will do
little to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. It would be a
grievous waste of taxpayer money if this settlement was the end
result of the case. I implore you to reconsider this course of
action.
Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Rehbein Macintosh Games Developer
MTC-00033547
From: paul podnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I do not believe that the proposed remedies represent what is in
the best interest of the people or the computer industry. My company
has been damaged by the illegal workings of Microsoft and so have
many others in the world.
The entire Apple computer platform and Motorola has been damaged
by the monopolistic practices and pressure put on Apple to stop
certain developments. Netscape went from a majority player in the
browser field to a minority player and almost bankrupt. Java was
corrupted by the efforts of Microsofts J++ development and not
Microsoft is after the internet with their .Net strategy which was
really built upon Netscapes efforts.
Microsofts efforts also misrepresent the stability and security
of all their operating systems and application programs. Many
individuals and businesses have been damaged due to lost work and
downtime caused by the low quality standards of the Microsoft
software. My remedies would include:
1. A payment to Netscape/AOL for the market stolen by Microsofts
free browser. This might be one half of current estimated Internet
explorer users times about 29 dollars for the people that would have
purchased a Netscape product.
2. A major free update of Windows 98 and the Office program
which would run on the computers purchased by businesses in the 1998
year which would work as advertised and be much more stabile.
3. A payment made to Sun for damages done to the JAVA platform
4. A payment made to Apple computer for the damage to the
internal development of software which is known in the industry
including Quicktime and Apple Works.
5. The inclusion of Quicktime as the default Windows Media
Player/ Authoring medium to generally further the multimedia
capabilities of millions of Windows users.
6. The inclusion of firewire support on all Windows desktops to
further the advance of this quality high speed Apple bus technology.
7. Finally, a public admission of guilt from Bill Gates as to
his involvement in the above matters and a media broadcast of the
trial findings and testimonies key industry and Microsoft personnel.
I would find the truth of this case much more interesting than the
OJ Simpson trial and much more valuable to the industry, the
populace and history.
Thank you for this forum to come forward and for a small part in
the process of Justice.
Paul j. Podnar
President
Accommodata Corporation
MTC-00033548
From: Kent Rosenkoetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
As a graduate student in computer science (University of North
Carolina--Chapel Hill) I cannot help but be aware of the
Microsoft anti-trust case. And while I believe it to be one of the
most important cases for the computer industry in years, I tend to
avoid dwelling on it because all I can feel is frustration.
Microsoft has:
1. Used their OS monopoly and OEM agreements to prevent any
computer manufacturer from selling dual-boot systems, effectively
killing BeOS and incredibly slowing the spread of other OSes,
particularly Free Software and Open Source OSes.
2. Used their Windows OS to spread Internet Explorer and Outlook
Express, making the entire world suceptible to hundreds of viruses
that do not work on any other browser/email client. This costs
American business alone billions of dollars every year.
3. Many other similarly disgusting actions I do not need to list
because I know many of my colleagues have already done so in detail.
My frustration stems from the proposed settlement. First, that
the breakup of Microsoft did not take place. Though I do not believe
a mere two pieces would have been sufficient, it would at least have
shown the public that the government is willing to mete out some
serious punishment for such flagrantly illegal behavior. Second,
that such a puny settlement would be proposed and even endorsed by
members of the government. The settlement does not adequately
restrict MS's future behavior, it leaves huge loopholes for
exploitation, and it for the most part neglects the concept of
compensation. While I believe the settlement may have been
negotiated in good faith by the prosecutors, the final agreement
does not account for the severity of the crimes or for MS's habit of
exploitation and arrogance.
Actually, I do not believe that any settlement negotiated with
Microsoft will be in the public interest. Microsoft's lawyers will
not agree to anything that will seriously curtail MS's activities,
and MS's activities are entirely centered around control of all
aspects of computing. No, that is not an overzealous fanatical
statement. That is a direct extrapolation of the past trends that
led to MS's current monopolies in operating systems, office
software, and web browsers, extended to current plans like .NET and
subscription-based software licensing. Any final judgement capable
of effectively affecting Microsoft will never be agreed to by
Microsoft.
This email is meant to express extreme displeasure with the
proposed settlement. It is not meant to offer possible alterations
for the reason above. Though my original thought when I learned of
the breakup Judge Jackson ordered was ``Three companies.
Operating Systems, Applications, and Web Services.'' It seems
that won't happen now. If you truly want an effective solution,
force Microsoft to pay damages to every person and business that is
a victim of a Microsoft-only virus. That will not eliminate their
monopolies or promote competition for the future, but it will
certainly take away their financial gain from their illegally
acquired monopolies. It will also make the millions that have been
victims of the serious
[[Page 30126]]
problems in Microsoft software feel a little better.
Kent Rosenkoetter
Graduate Student
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
MTC-00033549
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A single minded focus of a great company like Microsoft--to
simplify the computing experience, and making IT affordable to a
common man--has really been a path breaking achievement of the
20th century. Any adverse judgement will only harm the end-consumer,
who will be forced to cough up money for the most essential of
features & innovations. Growth & well-being of Microsoft is
essential to foster competition and health of IT industry not only
in the U.S., but of the economy world-wide.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033551
From: James Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ,
The proposed settlement is NOT in the publich interest.., it is
ineffective and has large loopholes.
My name is James Michael Carter. I am a real person working in
the computer industry (programmer) who can tell story after story of
microsoft abuses. I have followed and complained about Microsoft
abuses since the early 90's (before much of their behavior was
successfully brought to the attention of anti-trust enforcers).
(real person in contrast to Microsoft's fraudulant
``astroturf'' fake citizen's responses which have been at
least several times caught!) I am very much against the proposed
settlement. It is not in the public interest. As a start, I advocate
the changes proposed at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
with further resources at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ Also I echo
Ralph Nader's criticisms: http://www.cptech.org/at/at/
rnj12kollarkotellynov501.html
To highlight some general problems, there are not protections
for Non-MS operating systems to get hold of technical
interoperability details and API's in order to build compatible and/
or competing products and systems. Further, MS should not be allowed
to buy technology companies.., they absorb and kill off competition
and gain beach-heads ensuring the next big thing will be in their
controls--leveraged off their existing stranglehold and $36
billion bank account. Profits they did not mine from the ground, but
taken off the backs of consumers!! Microsoft yells how all they want
to do is innovate and compete * * * yet their behaviour
and snubbing of the law and our courts show their words are as
trustworthy as their products'' security. Make MS publish any
and ALL API's, protocols, and file formats 3 months before any
distribution so others may compete with them (as they profess to
want).
Prevent them from buying any other companies (to make them
compete and --innovate as they claim they want to do. Make them
publish all their source code.
Microsoft wants to innovate and --compete-- Well then
make them do exactly that * * * --Microsoft's history
shows they do all to NOT have to compete* * * So, let's
finally make them do what they CLAIM is all they want to do
* * * The public interest requires it.
I also think microsoft should be broken up by product lines.
Structural remedies are often only remedy to fix where company shows
in its history to ignore consent decrees and have a penchant for not
complying and for litigating (delaying until the damage is already
done) (years and years now* * *).
I am a modestly self-employed programmer, who has personally
suffered and seen the abuses at the hands of Microsoft. Please don't
let the average folks down.
I would help you with new remedies or evaluation of such in any
way I can.
sincerely,
James Carter
221 Hosea Ave. Apt. 2
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
MTC-00033551--0002
(513) 559-9701
[email protected]
I attach for completeness the kegal analysis remedy fixes (which
I endorse and propose as well): http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
Contents
Introduction
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'',
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
Strengthening the PFJ
Correcting the PFJ's definitions
Release of Information
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
Summary
Introduction
As a software engineer with 20 years'' experience
developing software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd
like to comment on the Proposed
Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies
decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market
from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to
result in monopolization in the future'' (section V.D., p. 99).
Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to agree; he called the
proposed settlement ``strong and historic'', said that it
would end ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' and said
``With the proposed settlement being announced today, the
Department of Justice has fully and completely addressed the anti-
competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals against
Microsoft.''
Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to
the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systems, and that the
company's market position is protected by a substantial barrier to
entry (p. 15).
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft is
liable under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly
by imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs (Internet Access
Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), and Apple Computer,
by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM (Java Virtual
Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing Intel to drop
support for cross-platform Java tools.
The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
In the following sections I outline the basic intent of the
proposed final judgment, point out areas where the intent and the
implementation appear to fall short, and propose amendments to the
Proposed Final Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns.
Please note that this document is still evolving. Feedback is
welcome; to comment on this document, please join the mailing list
at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or email me directly at dank-
[email protected].
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
In crafting the Final Judgment, the judge will face the following
questions:
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'',
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
Here is a very rough summary which paraphrases provisions III.A
through III.J and VI. of the Proposed Final Judgment to give
[[Page 30127]]
some idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions:
PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct
Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs who support
competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ),
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), or Outlook
Express (0E). Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges
the top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus,
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft
bootloaders. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and 0E, so that competing
web browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly
to Windows. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems
to connect to Windows servers.
Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or 0E. (Roughly
same as F above.)
Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP,
WM, and 0E, and let them designate competing products to be used
instead. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the
terms of this settlement.
This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do
with security or copy protection.
PFJ Section VI: Definitions
``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined
as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as Internet
Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP),
Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). ``Windows
Operating System Product'' is defined as Windows 2000
Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional.
The agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows:
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let
competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty
payments. Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed
terms of the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
In the sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ deals
with the above questions.
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and
``Windows OS'' be defined?
The definitions of various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ
from the definitions in the Findings of Fact and in common usage,
apparently to Microsoft's benefit. Here are some examples:
Definition A: ``API''
The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the
interfaces between application programs and the operating system.
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows,
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs
to install software on Windows.
Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''
The Findings of Fact (? 28) define ``middleware'' to
mean application software that itself presents a set of APIs which
allow users to write new applications without reference to the
underlying operating system. Definition J defines it in a much more
restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to exclude any software from
being covered by the definition in two ways:
By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next
version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead
of ``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its middleware.
For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of Windows which was
only available via the Windows Update service, then nothing in that
version of Windows would be considered Microsoft Middleware,
regardless of whether Microsoft added it initially or in a later
update. This is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 consent decree
that allowed Microsoft to bundle its browser by integrating it into
the operating system.
Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product''
to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ),
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook
Express (OE). The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET
is questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET
and C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would
expect Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.
Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''
Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems.
Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating
System Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional,
Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and their successors. This
purposely excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; many applications written to the
Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC
Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be
run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the
next-generation mobile business PC, and it will be available from
leading computer makers in the second half of 2002. The Tablet PC
runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and features the
capabilities of current business laptops, including attached or
detachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based
applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by Windows
Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and
Pocket PC in places (e.g. portable computers used by businessmen)
currently served by Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be
trying to evade the Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one
example of how Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final
Judgment by shifting its efforts away from the Operating Systems
listed in Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition,
Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating
System that can run Windows applications.
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to Entry?
The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two
ways: By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the use
of non-Microsoft middleware.
A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E.,
restricts information released by those sections to be used
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that
interoperate with Windows programs.
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective
enforcement mechanism. It
[[Page 30128]]
does provide for the creation of a Technical Committee with
investigative powers, but appears to leave all actual enforcement to
the legal system.
What information needs to'' be released to ISVs to
encourage competition, and under what terms?
The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several
ways:
1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs.
2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs
Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final
beta test of a new version of Windows.
3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented
The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces
would not cover many important interfaces.
4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the
Released Documentation ISVs writing competing operating systems as
outlined in Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty
understanding various undocumented Windows APIs. The information
released under section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those
ISVs--except that the PFJ disallows this use of the
information. Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs
might need to divide up their engineers into two groups: those who
refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only applications; and those who
cannot refer to MSDN because they work on applications which also
run on non-Microsoft operating systems. This would constitute
retaliation against ISVs who support competing operating systems.
5. File Formats Remain Undocumented No part of the PFJ obligates
Microsoft to release any information about file formats, even though
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications
Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed
Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents
protect the Windows APIs (cf. current practice at the World Wide Web
Consortium, http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice). This leaves
Windows-compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are
they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This
can scare away potential users, as illustrated by this report from
Codeweavers, Inc.: When selecting a method of porting a major
application to Linux, one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a
competing implementation of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit
called ``MainWin''. MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and
Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft. However, this
customer elected to go with the Mainsoft option instead. I was told
that one of the key decision making factors was that Mainsoft
representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain critical
patents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk crossing
Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a chance to
determine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to disprove
the validity of this claim.
The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue,
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems.
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs,
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating
System but no Microsoft operating system.
Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMS, but says nothing
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box''
OEMs, if they offer competing products.--
Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to
leverage it into new areas.
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices,
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples
are given below.
1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source or
Free Software applications
The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states ... you
shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction
with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly Available
Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, or is
derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that
is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux)
or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly Available
Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or
distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source
License (SCSL); ...
Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable components.
Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, even
though they might later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft
often provides those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs)
prohibiting their use with Open Source or Free Software
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their
applications under Open Source or Free Software licenses; they must
hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the
addon API installed, which is often not the case. Applications
potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the competing
middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office suite
StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, and
discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites.
Additionally, since Open Source or Free Software applications
tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting
loss of market share by Open Source or Free Software applications
indirectly harms competing operating systems.
2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems
The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++,
is the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says:
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the
Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute the
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System
Product...''
This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++
on Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing
operating systems. Which practices towards large users should be
prohibited?
The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its
products to OEMs, but
[[Page 30129]]
not on how it licenses products to large users such as corporations,
universities, or state and local governments, collectively referred
to as ``enterprises''. Yet enterprise license agreements
often resemble the per-processor licenses which were prohibited by
the 1994 consent decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust
case, in that a fee is charged for each desktop or portable computer
which could run a Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether
any Microsoft software is actually installed on the affected
computer. These agreements are anticompetitive because they remove
any financial incentive for individuals or departments to run non-
Microsoft software. Which practices towards end users should be
prohibited?
Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional
incompatibilities to discourage users from running Windows
applications on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. Two
examples are given below.
1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a subsidiary
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.] .... ``
Only the Windows version appears to be available for download.
Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can
run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of
NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating
system.''
2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run
programs written for MS-DOS.
Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but
rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the
operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive
threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1
so it would display spurious and misleading error messages when run
on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor company, Caldera, brought a
private antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1996. (See the original
complaint, and Caldera's consolidated response to Microsoft's
motions for partial summary judgment.) The judge in the case ruled
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by
Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no
court has fully explored the alleged conduct.
The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so
that-they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft
applications software. Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public
interest?
The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment
can be summarized as follows:
The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing
operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many
important APIs are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to
replace Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it
defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next
version of Windows might not be covered at all.
The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET
with competing middleware. The PFJ supposedly applies to
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC,
or the X-Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and
are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and
not informing ISVs.
The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs
so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is
compatible. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with
Windows.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away
potential users.
The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms
currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses restrictive
licensing terms to keep Open Source or Free Software apps from
running on Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing
terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing operating
systems. Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once
banned by the 1994 consent decree.) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit
Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft
Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in
its applications to keep them from running on competing operating
systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards
OEMs The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but
no Microsoft operating system.
The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are
historically the most willing to install competing operating
systems--who ship competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft
to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like
sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating
systems to increase its market share in other areas.
The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective
enforcement mechanism.
Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
Strengthening the PFJ
The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from
the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar
to elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes.
In the sections below, I suggest amendments to the PFJ that
attempt to resolve some of the demonstrated problems (time pressure
has prevented anything like a complete list of amendments). When
[[Page 30130]]
discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown indented; removed text in
shown in [bracketed strikeout], and new text in bold italics.
Correcting the PFJ's definitions
Definition A should be amended to read
A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) ``means
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that
[Microsoft Middleware running] Popular Windows Applications running
or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product [uses] use
to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
Definition U should be amended to read
U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means [the
software code (as opposed to source code) distributed commercially
by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as Windows 2000
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and
successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn''
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion. ] any software or firmware code
distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing
any nontrivial subset of the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional,
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC 2002, and
successors to the foregoing, including the products currently code
named ``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. Four
new definitions should be added:
V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' shall be defined
as as the top 10 selling applications as reported by NPD Intelect
Market Tracking in each of the categories Business, Education,
Finance, Games, Personal Productivity, and Reference, plus all
Microsoft Middleware Products.
W. ``Essential Windows API Patents'' shall be defined
as those patents held by Microsoft which cover Essential Windows
APIs, such that those APIs cannot possibly be implemented without
infringing upon said patents.
X. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition''
shall be defined as a document, suitable for approval by a standards
body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the inputs,
outputs, and behavior of each Essential Windows API, and enumerates
any Essential Windows API Patents.
Y. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test
Suite'' shall be defined as software source code which, when
compiled and run, automatically tests an operating system for
compliance with the Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition, and
outputs a list of each API which fails to comply with the Essential
Windows APIs Standard Definition. The test suite should run
unattended; that is, it should be capable of running without human
interaction or supervision.
Release of Information
Section E should be amended to remove the restriction on the use
of the disclosed information:
... Microsoft shall disclose ... [for the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,] for the
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or
with application software written for Windows, Because any new
competitor in the Intel-compatible operating system must be able to
run Windows applications to have a chance in the market, and because
Microsoft has traditionally used undocumented Windows APIs as part
of the Applications Barrier to Entry, the Final Judgment should
provide explicitly for a clear definition of what APIs a competing
operating system must provide to run Windows applications. The best
way to do this is by submitting the API definitions to a standards
body.
This was done in 1994 for the Windows 3.1 APIs (see Sun's 1994
press release about WABI 2.0 and the Public Windows Initiative). The
result is Standard ECMA-234: Application Programming Interface for
Windows (APIW), which provides standard definitions for an essential
subset (four hundred and fourty-four out of the roughly one
thousand) of the Windows 3.1 APIs; it was rendered mostly obsolete
by the switch to Windows 95. The Final Judgment should provide for
the creation of something like ECMA-234 for the various modern
versions of Windows.
Because Microsoft currently claims that it has intellectual
property rights that protect the Windows APIs, but has never spelled
out exactly which patents cover which APIs, the Final Judgment
should force this to be spelled out.
A new section IV.E should be created to achieve the above goals
by adding the following text:
E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group Within
60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties shall create
and recommend to the Court for its appointment a six person Windows
API Standards Expert Group (``WASEG'') to manage the
creation, publication, and maintenance of an Essential Windows APIs
Standard Definition, and to guide it through the process of being
adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
Three of the WASEG members shall be experts in software design
and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be experts in
intellectual property law. No WASEG member shall have a conflict of
interest that could prevent him or her from performing his or her
duties under this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. No
WASEG member shall have entered into any non-disclosure agreement
that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to
Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such an agreement during
her or his term on the WASEG.
Without limitation to the foregoing, no WASEG member shall have
been employed in any capacity by Microsoft or any competitor to
Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she or he be so employed
during his or her term on the WASEG.
Within seven days of entry of this Final Judgment, the
Plaintiffs as a group shall select two software experts and two
intellectual property law experts to be members-of the WASEG, and
Microsoft shall select one software expert and one intellectual
property law expert to be members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall
then apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by
the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to this section.
Each WASEG member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months.
At the end of a WASEG member's initial 30-month term, the party that
originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either
request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or
replace the WASEG member in the same manner as provided for above.
If the United States or a majority of the Plaintiffs determine
that a member of the WASEG has failed to act diligently and
consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a
member of the WASEG resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve
in his or her capacity as a member of the WASEG, the person or
persons that originally selected the WASEG member shall select a
replacement member in the same manner as provided for above.
Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the United
States shall enter into a Windows API Expert Group services
agreement ``WASEG Services Agreement'') with each WASEG
member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to
permit the WASEG to perform its duties under this Final Judgment.
Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG member and hold him or her
harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities or
expenses arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of
the WASEG's duties, except to the extent that such liabilities,
losses, damages, claims, or expenses result from misfeasance, gross
negligence, willful or wanton acts, or bad faith by the WASEG
member. The WASEG Services Agreements shall include the following:
The WASEG members shall serve, without bond or other security,
at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as
the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of reasonable fees and
expenses. The WASEG Services Agreement shall provide that each
member of the WASEG shall comply with the limitations provided for
in section IV.E.2. above.
Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with funds needed to procure
office space, telephone, other office support facilities,
consultants, or contractors required by the WASEG.
The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally
available to all ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by
the WASEG.
The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties: The WASEG
may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers to questions
about Microsoft intellectual property claims.
[[Page 30131]]
The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers
to questions about the inputs, outputs, and functionality of any
Windows API; in particular, the WASEG may compel Microsoft to
provide complete documentation for Windows APIs, including hitherto
undocumented or poorly-documented Windows APIs.
The WASEG may engage, at the cost and expense of Microsoft, the
services of outside consultants and contractors as required to
fulfill the duties of the WASEG.
The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web site not
owned or otherwise controlled by Microsoft, and will publish status
reports and other information there at least as often as once per
month. Documentation on the web site shall be made available subject
to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; test suite
source code made available on the web site shall be made available
subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs,
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types, as well as
which versions of Windows it is supported by and what percentage of
Popular Windows Applications use it. The WASEG shall publish this
list on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free Documentation
License, according to the following schedule: Within 90 days after
the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish this information for
at least three hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each month
thereafter, the WASEG shall publish this information for another
three hundred Windows APIs. This shall continue until a complete
list of Windows APIs is available on the web site. The WASEG shall
use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify that
the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that installing or
running any Popular Windows Application does not cause any unlisted
Windows API to be invoked.
The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows API
patents and patents pending, and an evaluation of which Windows APIs
each patent covers. The WASEG shall compile this information by
asking Microsoft for a complete list of Essential Windows API
patents and patents pending, and then determining which Windows APIs
are likely to be covered by each patent or patent pending; the WASEG
shall use the World Wide Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/
2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124 as guidance. The WASEG shall
publish this information on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU
Free Documentation License, according to the following schedule:
Within 90 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish
an evaluation of 30 patents. On the 1st of each month thereafter,
the WASEG shall publish an evaluation of another 30 patents. This
shall continue until evaluations of all patents claimed by Microsoft
to cover the Windows APIs have been published on the WASEG web site.
The WASEG shall compile documentation for the list of Windows
APIs defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including a complete
description of the meanings of the return values and parameters, and
the effects of the API. The documentation should be composed in a
style similar to that used for the Single Unix Specification
documentation ( http://www.UNIX-systems.org/go/unix). Within 180
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of every month
thereafter until complete, the WASEG will make available the
currently completed portion of this documentation via its web site.
When the three documents described above--the list of
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the
acceptance of that document as a standard.
The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at
least another fifty Windows APIs. This shall continue until a
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is
available on the web site.
In the event that a planned update to Windows or any other
Microsoft product is expected to result in the creation of new
Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the above documents
and test suite covering the new APIs, make them available via its
web site, and undertake to submit them to the same standards body as
above as an addendum to the standard.
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended to
read 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c)
includes a non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating
System Product; or ...
Summary
This document demonstrates that there are so many problems with
the PFJ that it is not in the public interest. It also illustrates
how one might try to fix some of these problems.
Dan Kegel
MTC-00033552
From: Michael L. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
** Secret **
Hello,
I would like to provide my comment on the settlement that the
Justice Department has entered in with Microsoft. I believe that the
settlement is quite adequate. If anymore were to be done it has a
reverse effect of harming the consumer (me). I think it is time that
this matter be settle and the allow Microsoft and the Justice
Department move forward.
Thank you
Michael L. Mitchell
Brandon, FL
MTC-00033553
From: Michael Batchelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed
settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft. As an information
technology professional, I have personally witnessed Microsoft's
policies restricting consumer choice (my own, w/regard to purchasing
computers without Windows operating systems), failing to provide
quality service (for which increased competition should be the
solution), and limiting, rather than encouraging innovation.
Should the Department of Justice choose to move forward with the
proposed settlement, I will take it as compelling evidence that the
Bush administration is clearly a government ``for large
corporate interests, by large corporate interests, and of large
corporate interests'', at the expense of the peoples''
interest.
Thank you,
Michael Batchelder
Redwood City, CA
MTC-00033554
From: jbarney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
I am a small business owner. Ten years ago my business had to
cobble together a variety of software programs in order to operate
my business because one program would not talk to another program.
To do so was very expensive and time consuming. These are the very
companies that are suing Microsoft. Along came Microsoft and tied it
all together, and did so at a reasonable price. These other
companies are just whining because they still don't have the ability
to come up with a workable system.
Their is no antitrust case against Microsoft. Nobody has been
hurt. Quite the contrary, Microsoft has made life a lot easier for
most of us. It is just a political charade. Quit spending taxpayer
money, throw the case out. and get on with life.
Jack Barney
MTC-00033555
From: jwjptw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Sirs:
I would recommend that the DOJ stop any further action against
Microsoft and accept the settlement. I have been involved with
computers for 24 years and decided long ago it made sense to go with
Microsoft products beginning with MS-DOS. They have developed good
products with excellent support and training. They have empowered
the home computer user to expand his vision and utilize tools that
previously were beyond his expectations and without effort to learn
programming in order to achieve immediate
[[Page 30132]]
success. Microsoft has done more to advance human knowledge and
productivity than any single corporation has in the technical age.
Many of the plaintiffs exhibit greed and envy in their comments
and actions while trying to get the government to grievously impair
a competitor when their primary damage is to their egos.
The attorneys in the federal government, states, and some
individual corporations have used this venue to enhance their own
public images, which is such a waste of public money. You have a
settlement; take it and get on to matters that are more important.
Thank you,
Jack Jenkins
MTC-00033557
From: Michael Capehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is a bad idea, and will only serve to let
Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist for destroying any real
chance for competition in the computer software industry. Stop them
now, because you will not get another chance.
Mike Capehart
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00033558
From: Kevin P. Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
My name is Kevin Rice. I live in Bellevue, Washington, and work
as a business analyst. As part of my work, I use many of Microsoft's
products, including Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. I
consider myself to be a power user and build sophisticated documents
with Microsoft Excel and Access that include procedures written
using built in macro language for Office, Visual Basic for
Applications. At home, I use an Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Office
98, so I am familiar with multiple computer operating systems.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement as currently structured
does not meet the public interest. The proposed penalties are
inadequate given Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior as outlined in
the Findings of Fact, and Microsoft has too much influence over
enforcement through the Technical Committee. The current competitive
situation in the computer industry and its impact on consumers
requires tougher, enforceable penalties.
According to the Findings of Fact, Microsoft has engaged in
anticompetitive business behavior. It is important that there be
punishment for this behavior; without adequate punishment, Microsoft
has no incentive to discontinue and alter the behavior deemed
anticompetitive by the courts. Microsoft could easily defend itself
against complaints using the legal system, while small businesses
with innovative products beneficial to the consumer would have no
practical recourse, even in the courts, if they were the victims of
any anticompetitive practice by Microsoft. The Final Judgement in
Civil Action 94-1564 prohibits Microsoft from entering
``into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or
restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-
Microsoft Operating System Software product.'' Also, Microsoft
cannot enter into an agreement with an OEM that prohibits the OEM
from ``licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-
Microsoft product.'' According to the Findings of Fact,
Microsoft has already violated the prohibitions in the Final
Judgement by not allowing OEMs to install their own tutorial
software to their computers'' boot sequence. This prevented
OEMs from offering a useful benefit to consumers. Microsoft also
violated the spirit of the Final Judgement by not allowing OEMs to
delete the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop; this
discouraged OEMs from putting an alternative browser on the desktop
because it would be confusing to consumers. Given this behavior,
stricter remedies would be appropriate. However the Revised Proposed
Final Judgement does little more than restate the prohibited
behavior of the previous Final Judgement using more precise language
updated to reflect the current industry environment. This will not
prevent Microsoft from altering their behavior in ways that may (or
may not) be in compliance but would still be anticompetitive,
requiring more legal action and prolonging harm to consumers. The
language in the RPFJ also does nothing to penalize Microsoft for
illegal behavior. This will make the prohibitions in the RPFJ more
difficult to enforce, since violations of the prior Final Judgement
resulted in no significant penalty to Microsoft.
The RPFJ calls for the establishment of a Technical Committee,
with one member chosen by Microsoft and another member that the
Microsoft-chosen TC member must agree to. Given that Microsoft has
been ``found guilty'' of anticompetitive monopoly
maintenance, they have too much influence over the makeup of the TC.
The selection process for the Technical Committee is analogous to
giving an accused murderer the ability to choose some of the jurors
for his trial. A better alternative would be to give Microsoft
limited veto ability similar to a jury selection process, with
members randomly selected from a pool of candidates that meet the
qualifications outlined in the RPFJ.
The current Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not improve
the competitive environment in the computer industry and does not
benefit consumers or the public interest. Because of the lack of
serious alternatives to Microsoft products, consumers pay more for
those products in extra time spent resolving defects in Microsoft
software. These defects range from bugs that interfere with the
desired use of computer software to vulnerabilities to viruses such
as Melissa, Code Red, and Nimda. In addition there may be an unknown
number of potential innovations in computer hardware or software
that will not be made available to consumers because of fear of
anticompetitive business practices by Microsoft. Netscape is but one
example of what can currently happen to a business with an
innovative product in conflict with Microsoft's business goals.
Therefore, it is critical that any settlement or other remedy of
this case effectively curbs Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
MTC-00033559
From: Javier L. Madrid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor, Now is the time to preempt the further spread of
Microsoft's plans to expand their ill-gotten monoply. The company
that started by offering products to make computing easier for non-
programmers has reached a point of diminishing returns for those
same people. For a number of years now their efforts have been
focussed more on the protection of their revenue stream ( you and I)
than on true innovation. Not only have they been bereft of
innovative products but have hired away from academia and their
rivals truly innovative thinkers thus preventing the fruits of their
scientific labor benefiting their competitors.
From my vantage point from within the Tech Industry I feel that
this unapologetic and arrogant company that has grown so huge in its
pervasiveness in every day life must be dealt with in a truly
historic harsh fashion. As they have dealt brutally from a business
perspective with those perceived as even remotely competitive
whether it be a single person or a company so they too must now be
taken to task.
These are my recommendations:
(1) They are not to be allowed to expand to ANY new technical
markets for 10 years either by partnership or funding or purchasing
of companies or rights to technology.
(2) Levy a 10 billion dollar penalty against the company and
only accept CASH, and not spread over 5 or 10 years of installments.
Use the money to help fix our educational system.
(3) They must open the entire set of Windows APIs and file
formats now and in the future to truly foster competition and
innovation.
Your Honor, it is key that this company not be allowed to
``embrace and extend'' their monoply.
Their true intentions are not so much about producing good
products as it is about preserving at all costs a regular tithing
from you and I.
Your Honor, it is time for you to ``think outside the
box''.
MTC-00033560
From: Michael J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Court: I have read and cosigned the Open Letter
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement written by Dan Kegal, and I am
writing to further express my opinion of the Proposed Final
Judgement in the United States v. Microso case. I believe that the
Proposed Final Judgement should not go through the way it is. I am
aware that the Department of Justice concluded that Microsoft has
engaged in monopolistic behaviors and that Microsoft has used its
[[Page 30133]]
position of power to prevent competition. However, this main problem
still has not been addressed fully. Under the settlement as it
currenly is written, Microsoft would essentially be able to continue
its anti-competitive practices merely by altering some of its
company procedures.
I believe that Microsoft should be required to publish
documentation of its APIs for uninhibited use by developers of
alternative software systems. This will serve to reduce the
``appications barrier to entry,'' allowing developers of
competing products to add compatability for existing standards.
This, in turn, allows those developers to make a successful entry
into the software market, thus promoting competition.
I also contend that Microsoft should be disallowed to certify
hardware devices as ``designed for Windows,'' unless the
specifications of those devices are released to the public.
Consumers don't want to use an operating system that doesn't support
their hardware. Maintaining secret hardware specifications hinders
the development of free operating systems that run on a wide range
of hardware.
In conclusion, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement is
not good enough and is in need of revision. The revisions should
ensure that Microsoft cannot resume actions that are anti-
competitive and that are not in the public interest. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Kennedy
Champaign, IL
Computer Science Student
University of Illinois
MTC-00033561
From: Jessica Kohagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:38pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
I am writing as both a concerned college student and as a
concerned consumer. I truly believe that open competition in every
market promotes better quality and utilizes all the available
resources. I fear that the demand for engineers in computer-related
fields will decrease significantly if Microsoft's competition is
restricted or eliminated. In addition, the development of computer-
related technology maybe be slowed if companies aren't trying to
``get an edge'' over one another. Keeping unrestricted
competition will ensure state-of-the-art technology and quality
products for the consumer as well as job openings and possible
entrepreneurships for those currently in the industry as well as
those who will be entering it within a few years.
Sincerely,
Jessica Kohagen
Pardee Tower #612
614 W. 35th Pl.
Los Angeles, CA 90089
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033562
From: Frances Fronczak
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frances Fronczak
3820-C Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4004
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
Please stop picking on Microsoft. This is a Republic where
capitalism is king and Microsoft has brought us to an unsurpassed
degree of growth in technology and prosperity. The unnecessary DOJ
pursuit of Microsoft has caused many financial losses to average
Americans in jobs and in the financial markets. The proposed
settlement should be approved so that we can all go forward and stop
wasting productive American ingenuity from one of the greatest
companies in the universe. The only beneficiaries from this ordeal
will, in all likelihood, be the attorneys, as we have all witnessed
in the past in regard to the persecution of the Tobacco companies.
Yours truly,
Frances Fronczak, MD
MTC-00033563
From: Ken Kundert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is clear to me that the DOJ caved in to intense lobbying
pressure when it agreed to the current settlement. That is the only
way to explain it. Anybody that has paid any attention to
Microsoft's behavior of the last decade knows that this settlement
will have no significant impact on Microsoft. They will ignore it
like they ignored both the law and the restrictions that they agreed
to in the past. Furthermore, I do not believe that they would have
been offered this settlement had they not improperly influenced both
the Executive Branch and our law makers. Giving Microsoft this
settlement shows the people of the United States and the world that
justice in America does not apply to the very wealthy.
It is my sincere hope that the original spirit of the Tunney act
is followed. If so, I confident that it will come out that Microsoft
was able to buy a very favorable settlement. At the very least, I
hope that you reject the DOJ settlement and go with the settlement
proposal of the 9 dissident states. Better yet, I hope you return to
the idea of breaking up Microsoft. I have been involved in the
software industry for 20 years, though I have never been directly or
indirectly employed by either Microsoft or its competitors, and I
can say with great confidence that Microsoft, with its monopoly
position, has slowed the progress of the computer industry by at
least 10 years. The cost of not having competitors to its buggy and
insecure software has been vast. Breaking up Microsoft will be the
best thing for consumers.
Ken Kundert
MTC-00033564
From: Lindsay Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Judge,
I don't think that the PFJ is the correct solution to this
problem. Microsoft is a fabulous company, however, they are in
direct violation to the law. They are guilty of some very serious
anti-competitive violations. The PFJ does not provide an effective
enforcement mechanism. What microsoft has done to many companies is
very wrong and needs to be stopped. It is not fair. The world needs
competition.
Thanks
Lindsay Ray 213-764-3843
MTC-00033565
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I whole heartedly support the proposed settlement agreement in
U.S. v. Microsoft. While no settlement is likely to please all, this
settlement has well thought out, purposeful remedies that will
encourage technical innovation and market competition. It is time to
accept the fair remedies of the settlement and allow the industry to
concentrate on creating the new computing products that will create
jobs and stimulate the economy.
Kevin Schuler
President
InDepth Technology
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033566
From: Jim White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern:
This my public comment under the Tunney Act.
I am OPPOSED to the revised proposed Final Judgement to resolve
the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft as
it currently is formulated (11/06/2001).
The proposed remedies are entirely inadequate to resolve ongoing
anti-competitive practices by Microsoft with regard to the
development and marketing of software competing with the Windows
Operating System. Of particular importance is that no provision is
made to prevent Microsoft's efforts to subvert the development and
distribution of free and open software that competes with Windows.
Microsoft is using its many entangling End User License Agreements
for both its applications (such Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office,
etc) and SDKs (software development kits, necessary in many cases
for practical development of applications to be used with or to
compete with Windows) to REQUIRE that the End User to only use the
application software on a Microsoft licensed operating system. This
is blatant product tying to the monopoly Windows OS with the direct
consequence of preventing the distribution of legal competing
products.
[[Page 30134]]
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
James White
Software Consulant
Laguna Hills, CA
MTC-00033568
From: Mickey Aberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment:
I have no dog in the Microsoft fight. Nevertheless, I have been
following the case since the trial started.
Microsoft was proven to have committed massive antitrust
violations. During the trial it was caught falsifying a
demonstration, and its executives were caught lying many times.
The court of appeals en banc upheld the findings of serious
violations and monopolizing on a scale that is huge. This was
apparently the full court of appeals, comprised to al arge extent of
conservative judges).
How can Microsoft have any hope of avoiding massive punishment?
A defendant one-tenth the size, whose violation had one-tenth the
scope, would be trying to keep its executives out of jail.
The Microsft settlement is surreal (and unfairly favorable to
the Defendant). It looks like political connections or intimidation
have prevailed over justice.
Microsoft really needs to be broken up into three parts.
John M. Aberman
2145 Radcliffe Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28207
(704) 372-5646
MTC-00033569
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I wish to express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment
with Microsoft.
I do not believe the proposed remedies will do anything to curb
the behaviors of Microsoft which were found to be in violation of
antitrust laws when the company was found guilty.
For example, the proposal includes many opportunities or
loopholes for Microsoft to exclude itself from API disclosure
requirements. It can simply claim that there are security reasons
for not documenting an API. It can itself define who is a true
competitor. Why does this Proposed Final Judgment allow Microsoft
such leeway in deciding itself whether it con be excluded from a
requirement of the Proposed Final Judgment? Allowing Microsoft to
claim security as a reason to not disclose an API is ridiculous.
Unix and Unix-like operating systems describe all their APIs
clearly, some even give you all their source code (Linux, FreeBSD,
OpenBSD, etc.) and do not consider this a security problem at all.
Security through obscurity, as it is called, is most definitely not
better than security through open discussion, availability ond peer
review, and in my opinion (and that of many security experts) is
worse. I believe that this particular exception to disclosure should
never have made it into the Proposed Final Judgment.
My opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment lacks any true
corrective power goes beyond the comment above, but applies to it as
a whole. I believe that this Proposed Final Judgment heavily favors
the guilty in these proceedings and fails to adequately represent
the United States of America. We the people, represented by the
Department of Justice, received a verdict of guilty against
Microsoft, yet it now seems that we are backing down in the
sentencing phase. The fact alone that the guilty party in this
matter likes this Proposed Final Judgment makes it suspect beyond
specific problems with it.
In summary, I believe the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the
public interest. It does not seriously, nor effectively address the
illegal behavior of the convicted monopolist, Microsoft.
Respectfully submitted,
Olivier Calle
Senior Software Engineer, Citizen of the United States of
America
PO Box 752
Marysville WA 98270-0752
MTC-00033570
From: Pedro Celis (wrnha)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Washington State
Dear Sirs,
As Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of
Washington State we offer our endorsement of the agreement reached
by Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states. The
settlement should be accepted not only for its specifics, but also
for the principles that it represents.
Whenever conflicts arise, our government should strive to find
common ground and reach compromises with business. Negotiation and
settlement is a better model for government-business relations than
litigation. It is unfortunate that the dispute between Microsoft and
the government has already resulted in such a long and costly trial.
Better still, government should seek to minimize its interference
with the competitive market place; it should work as an ally with,
not an adversary to, business.
Litigation is never good for business or industry. Because
virtually all businesses rely on technology, the Microsoft case
affects us all. As the case proceeded, it appeared that government,
not the competitive marketplace, might establish the direction of
technology. Such an event would have proved disastrous for the
technology industry, for the greater business community, and for the
economy.
We are happy to see that a comprise and agreement has been
reached between these parties and we encourage you to accept this
settlement. pThis settlement would be fair and reasonable at any
time, even if our economy was growing at a rapid pace. However that
is not currently the case, and for that reason it is all the more
important that the settlement be finalized and the American
technology industry starts to benefit from a public policy that
minimizes costly regulation, ensures competition, and promotes fair
trade and intellectual property enforcement in international
markets.
Sincerely Yours,
Pedro Celis, Ph.D.
Republican National Hispanic Assembly
Washington State Chairman
MTC-00033571
From: Patrick Melody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regard to the Microsoft Settlement. I am
troubled by the settlement as it does not appear to do anything to
remedy harm caused by Microsoft's actions nor do anything to promote
the public good. As background information on myself, I have a
master's degree in computer science and have worked as a
professional programmer since 1995. Previous to this I have used and
programmed computers as a hobby since high school in the early
1980s.
The operating system is the lowest level of software on a
computer, on which all other software running on the computer
depends. The value of a ubiquitous operating system to the public is
that it provides a unified platform on which to target applications.
Program developers need learn only this one system, and large
numbers of users may then enjoy the availability of numerous
application programs.
Furthermore, these users can easily interoperate with each other
since they all share the OS as a common infrastructure. The value of
a ubiquitous operating system to it's owner is the dependence of
millions of users on the owner. This dependence can be used to
leverage dependence in other areas besides the OS.
The Internet ``works'' and has enjoyed great success
because it was built on open protocols that are independent of any
particular hardware or software program. Even though you and I may
use completely different hardware platforms, operating systems, and/
or email programs, we can still exchange email with no difficulties.
Even though our web pages may be produced with different authoring
programs and we may use different web browsers, we can still read
each others web pages. This is due to the open protocols and data
formats used on the internet. In the age of the disconnected desktop
computer, the operating system was the common substrate. In the age
of connected systems a new common substrate as appeared:
communications protocols and file/data formats. The benefit of the
public to these open protocols and formats is clear: the ability to
have software written by anyone interoperate seamlessly and
effectively with software written by anyone else. First, any
networking protocols used by Microsoft must be fully published and
approved by an independent network protocol body before any
Microsoft software using them is deployed. This especially applies
to the .NET and associated Hailstorm and Passport technologies,
which Microsoft is clearly positioning to be tomorrow's ubiquitous
software infrastructure. The purpose of this is to ensure the
ability of anyone's software
[[Page 30135]]
to interoperate with Microsoft software and prevent Microsoft from
using their OS monopoly to gain a monopoly over internet usage.
Second, any file formats used by Microsoft must be fully
published so that these files may be read and written by independent
developers, again to ensure interoperability with Microsoft's
software.
Finally, there must be effective provisions for the settlement
to be enforced since a settlement that can be ignored without severe
repercussions is no settlement at all.
Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it feels it has done nothing
wrong and that this entire case is an unjustified imposition on it,
even going so far as to fake video evidence in front of a federal
judge. Such a defendant cannot be trusted on its own recognizance.
The current settlement has no teeth.
Microsoft will undoubtedly cry that these measures are unfair.
However, the rules of business are different for monopolists than
for non-monopolists, and there must be a penalty for monopolists
found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly as Microsoft has
done. As such, these measures are not unfair and would greatly serve
the public interest by allowing nonmonopolist software to interact
on even ground with the monopolist's software, allowing more
competition and more options to the public in choosing their
products and services.
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Melody
3708 Acosta Rd
Fairfax VA 22031
[email protected]
[email protected]
MTC-00033572
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough.
Microsoft has already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon
from the desktop; the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little
more than ``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft
competitors, with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by
Microsoft: the computer user.
This is just another method for states to get free money, and a
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic
industry the world has ever seen.
Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vince Bradley
5329 Summerlin Road
Fort Myers, FL 33919
MTC-00033574
From: Thomas Tuttle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Tuttle
3602 Alpine Rd
Madison, WI 53704
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Thomas Tuttle
MTC-00033575
From: William J. McGurk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William J. McGurk
Rockville Bank, 1645 Ellington Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
As a taxpayer and consumer, I support the proposed settlement of
the Microsoft lawsuit, and urge you to approve it. Let's stop the
waste of taxpayers money fighting a fair settlement.
Sincerely,
William J. McGurk
MTC-00033576
From: Walter L. Johnson
To: Renata Hesse (E-mail)
Date: 1/28/02 8:10am
Subject: DOJ v Microsoft, an end user opinion
Dear Ms. Hesse,
It is my understanding that opinions regarding the DoJ v
Microsoft ruling is allowed and welcomed by your office. I have
attached such a document that states what perceive and believe in
the matter.
Thank you,
Walter L Johnson
From: Walter L. Johnson
To: Renata Hesse (E-mail)
Date: 1/28/02 8:10am
Subject: DOJ v Microsoft, an end user opinion
Dear Ms. Hesse,
It is my understanding that opinions regarding the DoJ v
Microsoft ruling is allowed and welcomed by your office. I have
attached such a document that states what perceive and believe in
the matter.
Thank you,
Walter L Johnson
The agreement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice,
An opinion By Walter L. Johnson While the subject, action has been
concluded with what has been perceived as less than a satisfactory
agreement, there are extended implications for which we must
prepare. If you want to cut to the chase, see ``Some final
words'' at the end of this opinion.
The allegations filed against Microsoft by the Department of
Justice at the outset has the appearances of a cut and dried case of
unfair practices involving free and open competition. The ruling
therefore had all the appearance and intent of limiting unfair
competition. We must conclude that there was sufficient evidence
against Microsoft to create a ruling. On closer examination, the
[[Page 30136]]
ruling is not as straightforward as it should be, that is if
Microsoft was so clearly at fault. Specifically, there are certain
portions of the settlement that clearly limit Microsoft's
competitive ability and others allow it to continue to compete.
Moreover, other portions of the settlement allow Microsoft to
continue to pursue its larger strategy without the hindrances that
the litigants were seeking. It is this enigmatic judgment that needs
examination. This examination is not for the purposes of a retrial
but for an understanding, because the end user could once again reap
the benefits as could the litigants.
Microsoft:
To say that Microsoft has brought desktop computing, PC style,
into the mainstream would be an understatement. MS took the next
software development step immediately after general PC hardware was
made commercially possible. Had not MS done this, desktop computing
could still be limited to offices. And most probably that would have
been due to prohibitive costs. Microsoft has stated all along that
its goal was to spread computing through society as a whole and link
it via a network. To achieve this goal it supplied an operating
system, graphic user interface and application software. It bundled
software, made special offers, collected partners and bought
companies.
If this is, in general, a fair assessment of Microsoft's intent,
actions, and strategy, then an examination of how it achieved it's
goals through what has been characterized as ``questionable
tactics'', are in order. And this includes the resulting
judgment by the DoJ.
* A previous analysis has been completed by ``ACT Analysis
of Microsoft/DOJ Proposed Settlement'', 1413 K Street, NW, 12th
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, www.ACTonline.org. I have used it's 6
headers to lend structure to my comments as I believe they tip the
ice burg.
1.``For computer manufacturers (OEMs) who equip their
products with any Microsoft operating system--Guaranteed
flexibility.''
Microsoft has been ordered to modularize it's OS, GUI and
middleware to allow OEMs to remove ``pieces and parts'' at
will and ``mix and match'' other OEM products and to have
the freedom to control the boot sequence of the of the OS.
Additionally, uniform-licensing terms, discounts, and marketing
freedom are ordered. Microsoft could have modularized their product
earlier and competed ``piece at a time'' but they chose to
integrate so that the product could function easier and quicker.
Remember hardware at the time of these alleged offences were slow
and quirky. Sometimes Windows worked well only for a particular
platform or hardware configuration. MS dealt with several clone
producers to enable their product to operate on the hardware
platform. It was a custom fit in many cases made by MS and the clone
producer before it arrived at the client. While MS was fighting the
OS/Hardware infrastructure problem, it appears likely that ease of
inclusion and exclusion was not a feature high on their list. It
seems that there were two problems that existed for MS, hardware and
application fit. MS chose the easy route, which excluded
competitors. MS was not obligated to assist its competitors in
undermining itself.
The Department of Justice has ordered Microsoft to make it's OS
a highly modularized piece of software.
This means that if a competitor, for example, wants a different
browser to be integrated into lets say Windows XP and that the
resulting product could be licensed as a VAP called ``Windows
XP Rouser Browser.'' The competitor will pay Microsoft a volume
rate for their basic ``Windows XP'' modular without the
Windows browser. If their resulting product'' is a contender to
Microsoft's, then as they say, ``we've got a horse race.''
Finally, Microsoft will not create any damaging strategy and or
tactic regarding this portion of the judgment that may be considered
a conscience effort to harm or hinder their competitor. The
competitor may integrate any middleware software of their choice
that previously WAS an integral part of the Microsoft OS including
controlling the boot up sequence.
A modular, accessible core is made available which allows anyone
the ability to plug their component into the core or just eliminate
that component functionality. Additionally, remember that MS piece
of middleware that is not used? It may be integrated into their
competitors OS. If MS is listening, their components may become more
valuable separately. Who is the winner? Will the costs rise? If you
recall, it was Netscape that took offence when MS bundled their own
Internet explorer with Windows. Netscape said unfair competitive
practices. Who lost? Netscape! Who won? The end user won and that
reinforced MS and their bundling practice. Modularizing may be the
smartest thing that the DoJ did for the public and Microsoft.
Moreover, it will make MS and it's competitors very interested in
turning out better products. The end result is that if all the
competitors play by the rules, then all will win. If Microsoft was
all that good at producing products before then they will prove it
again by producing an even better product in the future.
Additionally, the competition will be given the opportunity to do
the same.
*2.``For all information technology (IT) providers,
including Microsoft's competitors--Guaranteed access to
technical specifications.'' MS must now give up what ever
information it has that enables machines running the Windows OS to
communicate with MS servers. This may not include MS's middleware
code but How it interfaces with their servers. This means that
another software producer now has all of the protocol specifics to
create a specialized product for communications purposes or
something to think about regarding a run around with their systems.
In other words MS's competitors have some more advantage. It is the
``modularization and cooking instruction'' for networking
within MS Client and server products that the DoJ has delivered. Of
course MS must license ANY intellectual property rights to encourage
middleware production by it's competitors. The final part of this
part of the settlement is that MS may not penalize it's competitors.
Once again, this is a double-edged sword. Does any company
really want to have a stand up fight with Microsoft? Most
competitors will say yes, if it's a fair fight. And now, there are
certain areas that are very level and fair but even at this, MS has
an advantage. MS is big and has learned to mobilize a development
effort into a formidable force. It was seldom a deadline to compete
with competitors but to keep public promises that motivated MS to
excel. I believe that Microsoft's brand of internal talent
motivation is ``carrot and stick.'' When you give a gifted
group a challenge in an arena of their own, they will work
themselves beyond reason. In the new ``competitive
product'' arena, the talent wilt need more than the ``C
and S'' motivation. It is possible that the companies that
precipitated the litigation wanted a fair fight. BUT, most probably,
they wanted a breakup of Microsoft. That would have tied one hand
behind MS and given the competition an advantage. This way once MS
restructures and provides sensitivity training, they will continue.
But it can never continue as usual, this will be an all out fight if
anyone wants to gain a clear victory. I believe that Microsoft is in
the lead as before. However, with the new rules, old incentives have
been re-exposed to more players. How they will get there is fuzzy.
Moreover, Microsoft is unclear how they will improve their
modularized product to remain within the judgment and be superior.
Products being self contained yet accessible to broad use is good
for the competition and may be even better for Microsoft.
If MS must modularize then so must its competition.
Modularization with flexible interfaces that are tight, compact,
unbreakable, self-repairing, self-resetting modules. This has a lot
of potential because individual mods may be very narrow task
orientated or broad and intuitive in purpose. Put your system
together and have it very focused and directed. This part of your
system is manufactured by MS and that by AOL Time Warner, or Sun,
etc. This year MS has the best browser, next year Sun. Plug it in or
pull it out and put in another module by another manufacture.
The manufactures of the products you buy will strive to improve
their products and it will make them stronger and smarter. Everybody
wins.
3.``For end users---Guaranteed flexibility.''
It's simple, full capability for the end user to mix and match or
change it's mind. If they want to reverse a decision to use this
module, remove it and replace it with another, with on horrendous
results. This makes evaluation of products that claim to be superior
easier. Sales can persuade but performance will confirm.
Niche products may completely take over a middle ground for
dedicated groups of users. A product may rise to the surface as the
clear winner. Whichever the case, each module that has been defined
as middleware or that has been declared as a self-contained product
in it's own right will become a product in its own right. The end
user can customize their desktop computer to their taste and
purpose. And of course each individual product, module, will have
its own price tag. Buying an operating system piecemeal could become
difficult but I suspect that Microsoft will publish instructions.
Its competitors will complain,
[[Page 30137]]
MS will explain and in most cases the chess game will continue.
Remember, the end user reaps the result.
*4. ``For those who doubt Microsoft would comply with the
settlement agreement-- An unprecedented enforcement
mechanism.''
The settlement has caused Microsoft to provide at their cost, a
mechanism that allows resources, access, and authority to complain.
If a competitor thinks that Microsoft is acting outside the
agreement then it may file a fast acting complaint. This mechanism
for complaint has been created in the form of an autonomous
committee, technical committee, TC. It can get bigger or smaller as
is needed, its own judgment, to provide for the examination due to
complaints.
I am not sure if it allows for examination of releases or new
products. The delaying tactics that will most likely be practiced by
the competition will put the TC in constant conflict. However, this
will not be forever. And, if MS keeps it's nose clean and learns to
play the game, the TC will be a minor inconvenience. It is quite
possible that a stamp of approval from the TC will bolster MS's
public image. The TC had better know it's stuff, otherwise the
jailor may be held it contention. Maybe the TC will be disputed by
those it was formed to protect.
*5. ``For AOL Time Warner, Oracle, and Sun--
Opportunities to hinder Microsoft by abusing the settlement
agreement.''
AOL Time Warner(Netscape), Oracle and Sun has been given the
opportunity to observer a hand slap instead of an execution. This
has caused the three protagonists much worry because they thought a
breakup would deliver them the market unfettered for a considerable
length of time. Now they are forced to face a giant that has been
caused to kneel in repentance. Not the executed they expected.
That giant will be rising soon to its considerable height and
that is a formidable sight. You can forget about the states that
sued, they were in it for the money not justice and MS fowled that
by offering public education an arm's length gift. Yes, it will
expose education to Microsoft's products but later a modularized
product. There are many who would like cash offering by Microsoft
but that was not decreed by the DoJ. It appears that Microsoft has
exceeded the spirit and intent of the judgment in a positive way.
Remember if Microsoft's products are inferior, it will be proven to
a wider audience, and if Education chooses to supplant a module for
another so be it that is fair. The politicians have enough of our
money, which they deny education. This could be an immediate break
for education. It would appear that for a giant Microsoft has a
gentle side.
Some final words:
To the point, Was Microsoft seen to be so far in the distance
that it was no longer a race for first place but a question of a
race at all? If this was such a race, how did Microsoft get so far
ahead? There has been much exposed over the years about Microsoft's
phenomenal rise to the top of the heap, It's rise to power was not
being hidden but it was revealed in detail during the trial.
Moreover, that may be why Microsoft received something akin to a
hand slap rather than a public beheading.
IBM helped. IBM allowed Microsoft to keep the rights to the
original microcomputer operating system that it had developed. This
was after Microsoft had developed an operating system for IBM's new
desktop hardware platform in the very early eighties. Microsoft
decided to improve their version and license it on mass-produced
personal computers. If and when PCs took hold.
All it took was the non-biological cloning of the PC, ``PC
clone,'' and the rest is history. There was one fee charged for
each Microsoft Operating System that each PC clone received. That
event was the base of revenue that allowed Microsoft to improve
their operating system and pass the competition. Later they decided
to market applications. The applications were not the best in the
beginning but they improved until they were the standard. The
Internet was becoming a reality so they started to work with it.
However, that was just before they started bundling and bundling
gave them an edge. While there were organizations vending a word
processor or a spreadsheet or communications package (pre internet)
as a separate product, Microsoft vended a suite of applications with
some loose ties to each other. Later Microsoft developed an
operating system with a graphic user interface towards the mid
nineties. And just a little bit later in the mid nineties, the
commercial internet became a reality and with it MS released an
internet explorer, bundled with their new operation system. This
takes us to 1995. It is this period, probably 1988 to 1998, that
Microsoft's competitors lost ground, and intense infighting took
place.
That was a short history lesson without the super specifics that
are needed by a judicial system. Most probably, Microsoft developed
certain technical internal quirks that leaned towards locking
competition out of using their products. However, partnerships could
be developed with the competition, with Microsoft in the drivers
seat. Further, the Microsoft non-tech negotiators and executives
probably started to take over the dealing 100% rather than allowing
the techs to help. The non-tech Microsoft negotiators dealt for some
greater advantages. This caused their competitors to finally decide
that there was enough evidence to sue Microsoft for unfair
competitive. You will note that I have not included details much
less generalizations about any other company except Microsoft. Now
may be the time to include my opinion. During the trail, charges
were supported by specific details that were answered by Microsoft.
The trouble is that the other companies were performing many of the
practices in question as well. A wash. However, the charges that
were difficult to defend was aggressive correspondence and proposed
partner agreements that were clearly in favor of Microsoft. There is
not one of us that hasn't attended a ``Kick ass'' meeting
causing us to compete more aggressively but the meeting speakers
didn't say ``catch your opponent bent over and strike their
posterior with your foot''. To access the judgment, one would
have to say that the DoJ did not find enough evidence to support all
of the antagonist claims but found evidence that the computer
industry may be too complicated to control with today's laws.
When peacetime competition is declared, those who choose to
participate do so voluntarily. They do this in the belief that they
know the game and that it will be conducted in a fair and bounded
manor. As we have all seen, most games mature and change as the
skill level and nature of the competitors change.
The change is a natural result of maturation, because we want
and in fact need to improve. However, when competition is performed
outside the bounds of the game, the violator of the rules, unless
penalized, will win.
It is fairness that is at stake and the belief that it is the
cornerstone of justice. The People, Department of Justice, and all
the litigants want fairness. I believe that It is in this spirit
that a judgment was delivered that is more a warning than a penalty
to all who would participate in the game.
MTC-00033577
From: Dave Marker
Date: 1/28/02 8:26am
As a software engineer, I am most upset by article III. section
J. In my professional oppinion J-1(a) can be used by Microsoft to
withold any API they choose: who determines what will compromise
security?
Witholding APIs is the unfair advantage an operating system
vendor may abuse to stifle competition. In fact, this method is in
part responsible for Microsoft's ability to crush competitors out of
the market (two examples are WordPerfect and Netscape Navigator).
The provision is reasonable in the regaurd that everyone wants
computer operating systems to be secure, and engineers in general
want to prevent piracy of their work. This is the wrong way to
provide it. There is a saying in the computer security industry:
``there is no security through obscurity''. Security is
not gauranteed by hiding applicable APIs, security is achieved by
solid design and implementation. Any security problem in any
operating system is a result of poor design or implementation and
does not deserve court protection, it deserves to be fixed! The code
red and other high profile worms that attacked computers running
Microsoft Windows did not do so by using published APIs any way.
Hackers are willing to take time to discover and reverse engineer
what they require to do damage, it is competition must get to the
market timely and suffers if it can not.
Similarly, if anti-piracy APIs are done correctly, there is no
need to fear publishing them. Good systems rely upon mathematics;
not upon keeping the algorithm secret (A well known example is the
RSA crypto system). Given that there is no technical reason for for
article III. section J-1a, I can only assume this provision exists
for Microsoft to arbitrarily decide which APIs it doesn't want other
vendors to know about (and hence Microsoft won't have to compete
with them). Or Microsoft wants to slow down (but not prevent
hackers) and not alert consumers to flaws in their product.
Microsoft, should not, nor any other software vendor, be given the
right to make buggy software.
Since properly designed and written APIs do not need secrecy J-
2, especially J-2(d) is
[[Page 30138]]
just providing Microsoft the means to track their competitors
progress. Why should Microsoft get to license APIs (which it can
arbitrarily choose as provided by J-1) and hence gain revenue and
information about time to market from their competition?
With the exception of J-1(b), this is not an acceptable remedy,
and will not prevent future abuse.
Thank you,
David Marker
MTC-00033578
From: Traci L. Slatton
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
110 Riverside Drive Apt. 14E
New York, NY 10024-3734
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am pleased to know that after the government's long, three-
year antitrust litigation against Microsoft, a settlement was
reached in November of 2001. I support the settlement, which seems
fair, reasonable, and responsible.
Allowing Microsoft to concentrate on its business now, while
complying with the new restrictions of the settlement, gives them
the opportunity to innovate more than ever. Innovation is certainly
good for the economy, especially in the tech sector, which has been
hit hard the last couple of years.
Starting with an upcoming version of Windows XP, users will be
more easily able to delete portions or features of Windows (or at
least access to them), and replace them with competing software.
Computer makers no longer need fear higher prices for Windows
licenses if they also ship other operating systems, or if they
install Windows in ways to promote non-Microsoft applications.
That certainly sounds as if it should satisfy complaints from
critics. I see this settlement as not only fair, but also a good
thing for the economy, benefiting consumers and competitors with new
options, and giving industry a chance to grow again. I urge you to
support it.
Sincerely,
Traci Slatton
CC: Representative Jerrold Nadler
MTC-00033579
From: James Houston
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
----- Original Message -----
From: James Houston
To: [email protected]
Cc: Diane Feinstein ; Barbara Boxer
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I hope you can settle this suit ASAP. It has gone on to long and
continued litigation is harmful to our economy, due to the
disruptions in the software industry.
Microsoft is guilty of only trying to put the best product on
the market. I've been a software user for over 20 years now and have
never felt I was forced to use only a Microsoft version of a
program. I have tried several others over the years and have always
returned to Microsoft versions, because they are better. Would you
want to be forced to buy a KIA vs: a Toyota?. Netscape was a big
thing. I tried it for two years and the switched back to MSN. I use
earthlink as my browser and not MSN's browser. This was a conscious
decision and executed in a free market. I did not fell forced to use
MSN's browser.
Did breaking up AT&T really help us? We don't know where we
are getting our long distance service most of the time. And rates
for LD phone service. You could write another book about that.
Why don't you devote your efforts to clarifying the up and down
fluctuations of the oil and gas market?
That would be something the consumer would really be interested
in.
These state attorney generals are just looking for political
headlines so they can be considered for state governors jobs. What
is the average consumer really going to get out of a settlement
penalizing Microsoft? Look at the Ag'S track records. How many
governors were previously AG's?
Please give us a break and end this Microsoft ``witch
hunt'' now.
James M. Houston
[email protected]
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033580
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am in agreement with the Microsoft Settlement. I think that
the ettlement is fair and just and should be SETTLED AS IS!
Carolyn Cusick
17 Starr Drive Dr.
Enfield, NH 03748
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033581
From: Willis Langford
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Willis Langford
3579 Santa Maria Street
Oceanside, CA 92056-3903
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Willis S. Langford
MTC-00033582
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
It is time to end this law suit. The people did not suffer from
Microsoft integrating the browser or in essence offering it free. In
fact the only suffering on the part of the people was the amount of
tax payer money spent by the government on the case. The settlement
that is there now is in the best interest of the American people and
the technology industry.
[[Page 30139]]
MTC-00033583
From: Chuck Hellar
To: us dept of justice
Date: 1/28/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement between Microsoft, the DOJ and the nine states is
very fair. Microsoft pays a large price but the greater good is done
by providing the ``at risk'' to have computers and have a
chance to pull themselves up and be part of the mainstream.
The only complaints from consumers are from the Class Action
attorneys that want a quick buck. The main complaints are from the
competitors who are unable to compete in the marketplace. The courts
should not be the place to rectify poor management, the marketplace
should. So continue to fight strongly for this settlement.
Chuck Hellar
MTC-00033584
From: Richmond Perley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richmond Perley
5262 Kensington High St
Naples, FL 34105-5651
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richmond Perley
MTC-00033585
From: Alexander Belyaev
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Department of Justice:
We all know about recent dot com bubble. Whom to blame for it?
My feelings are that if somebody decides to find whom to blame, they
may say that it was Microsoft whom to blame for it and all
consequest losses in many people's investments during these boom
years.
U.S. Government should settle its case with Microsoft and stop
blaming Microsoft for everything that this company was accused.
Microsoft cannot be scapegoat for all other people's problems.
Microsoft allows US people to enjoy the best IT innovations and
standards in the world and leads true software technology
development and innitiaves.
US IT sector is a very competitive industry and already allows
any company to succeed in providing best services and goods and
making good money. The dot com bubble busted because people promised
a lot and could not deliver. Please let Microsoft to continue
delivering its products that consumers want and please settle your
case with this company.
Sincerely,
Alexander Belyaev
3714 West Bertona Street
Seattle, WA 98199-1914
MTC-00033586
From: John Roop
To: john ascroft
Date: 1/28/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 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.
Sincerely,
John
MTC-00033587
From: Jim Prendergast
To: DOJ comments
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Americans for Technology Leadership Tunney Act Submission On
behalf of Americans for Technology Leadership (), I am writing to express our support
for the bipartisan settlement reached between your department,
Microsoft and nine of the state attorneys. As an organization that
represents thousands of consumers, as well as numerous technology
companies and trade associations, we believe this settlement is a
tremendous step forward. It accurately addresses the finding of the
Court of Appeals and allows Microsoft and the rest of the industry
to get back to developing new technologies.
This settlement is the result of extremely hard work on the part
of many individuals from Microsoft, the Department of Justice and
the state attorneys general, as well as the mediators. Everyone had
to make concessions in order to bring this chapter to a close and
let the technology industry get back to work.
I would also like to commend the Department of Justice for their
efforts during the settlement process. ATL has always been concerned
with the level of involvement in
[[Page 30140]]
the case by Microsoft's competitors. Assistant Attorney General
Charles James echoed these concerns in November.
``Some of the loudest and most vocal criticism has come
from some of Microsoft's competitors,'' said (Antitrust Chief
Charles) James, without naming the corporate critics, which include
AOL Time Warner Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Real Networks Inc.
``I don't think we have ever had competitors be quite so
aggressive in asking that we serve their interests. Our job as
antitrust enforcers is not to level the playing field mid-
game.'' James distinguished between the ``real Microsoft
case'' and ``Microsoft, the public spectacle.'' He
said the appeals court's ruling that Microsoft illegally protected
the monopoly its Windows operating system enjoys doesn't support the
``broad-scale emasculation of the company'' that rivals
sought.
November 17, 2001
Bloomberg News,
Resisting the fierce lobbying attempts by these companies could
not have been easy, but your perseverance paid off as evidenced by a
reasonable settlement that addresses the concerns found by the Court
of Appeals. I'm sure you will receive several comments from well-
known commentators such as Judges Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork.
Their work on behalf of Microsoft's competitors is impressive, but
it differs from the feelings of the millions of consumers and the
thousands of small technology companies who have been hurt by this
case.
The American public has always believed that this case should
have been settled or brought to a close and that they have
overwhelmingly supported the settlement that was reached. Polling
commissioned by our organization has found that in July over 70% of
the American believed that it was time for this case to come to an
end. Since the settlement was reached similar numbers have supported
the agreement and found it to be ``fair and reasonable.''
These views have been found by a number of other polls conducted by
Gallup, Ipsos-Reid, and other organizations.
Countless members of Congress from both parties, who came out in
support of the agreement as well as many newspaper editorial pages
from across the ideological and geographic spectrum, have echoed
these sentiments. A fair and reasonable settlement is clearly
preferable to continued litigation. The case against Microsoft has
already gone on for nearly four years and has cost both Microsoft
and the government millions of dollars. The litigation has caused
Microsoft and the entire technology industry to focus on litigation,
instead of creating better products and serving the needs of
consumers. Given the state of the economy, the last thing we need is
continued litigation.
The settlement reached in this case is a responsible agreement,
which puts this entire case behind us. It addresses specific
findings of the Court of Appeals and in some cases imposes
restrictions even beyond those findings. In fact, Attorney General
Ashcroft pointed out that this settlement ``exceeds the kind of
relief that was signaled in the Court of Appeals opinion of earlier
this year.''
Many corporate rivals of Microsoft had hoped that remedies
imposed on the company would be much more far-reaching and extreme
for their own interests, they are simply not called for given the
ruling by the Court of Appeals and by the standards of antitrust
law. Our antitrust laws and our courts are not supposed to be used
by a few powerful companies to harm their rivals and do to them in
the courts what they cannot do in the marketplace. By attempting to
scuttle settlement, these companies choose litigation over
innovation.
While the parties have agreed to this settlement in full, I
would be remiss if I did not point out that there are elements of
this settlement that do cause concern. The establishment of the 3-
person technical review committee is the closest we have come to
regulation of innovation in this industry.
It's unprecedented that this panel will be housed at Microsoft's
headquarter. It may also investigate any complaint received by
interviewing any Microsoft employee it deems relevant. This kind of
power will impact the way Microsoft does business.
We hope that with this panel in place, Microsoft will be able to
develop products and move them to the market in a timely manner. As
this case has shown, technology moves at the speed of light. This
country has benefited from the pace of technological development.
Whether a rapid series of upgrades available for operating systems,
or the increase in usefulness coupled with a significant decline in
price that allowed millions of people the ability to take advantage
of the digital revolution, the entire country has benefited from the
speed at which this industry produces products. The role this review
committee plays will be key to this settlement working in a positive
manner and not a negative one.
It should not be open to abuse by competitors in an effort to
stymie Microsoft's ability to develop new products nor should it
move beyond its scope of review called for in the settlement. Any
delay in the development process at Microsoft will hurt consumers.
Denial of technological innovation will increase the cost for
consumers. These costs will be out of pocket as Microsoft will be
forced to pass the cost of compliance on to consumers in the form of
price hikes. And there will be costs associated with a loss of
productivity. One of the reasons we witnessed a ``boom''
in our economy is the last 10 years was because of the tremendous
productivity gains our economy realized as the result of technology.
We must ensure that these gains are still possible by allowing
technology to reach market in a short period of time.
Another area of concern is the wide latitude that OEM's will be
given when it comes to the design of the desktop. This stipulation
can result in more competitors'' products available on the
desktop as consumer work more closely with OEM to customize their
operating systems. While allowing for more choices in software
during the out of box experience can be beneficial for consumers,
there is concern that the desktop will become nothing but a source
of revenue for computer manufacturers. Cluttering the desktop with
icons of the highest bidders, while good for some OEM's bottom line,
could have a negative impact on the computing experience for
consumers. One of the key developments in computing that led to
widespread use was the transition from DOS to a graphical user
interface (GUI). With an operating system that made the interaction
simpler for the user, more computers were sold.
Increases in the usability of computers and decreases in price
are just two factors that caused millions of consumers to have
access to one or more computers. We need to be sure that computers
remain easy to use so that we can continue the wide adoption rate we
have seen in the last ten years. Littering the desktop may cause
confusion and lead to a negative experience.
Noting these concerns we still believe that, on balance, this is
a good settlement. This case has consumed millions of taxpayer
dollars while having a direct negative effect on consumers.
Investors have lost billions as pension funds and investment
accounts have been devastated by the decline in the tech sector. The
uncertainty surrounding this case is evident in the chart detailing
the stock performance of some major technology companies involved in
the case. Everyone has suffered to some extent. While this case is
not the only factor in the tech sector's decline, it has played a
role.
Much has been written about the tremendous impact the collapse
of Enron has had on the markets and investors. The chart just shows
you that Enron is a drop in the bucket compared to what has happened
to technology investors. On behalf of our members and our coalition
partners, we encourage the Department of Justice to continue its
tremendous efforts on behalf of settlement and hope you urge the
District Court to approve this settlement in the public interest.
Jim Prendergast
Executive Director
Americans for Technology Leadership
1413 K Street NW 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
202-835-2030
202-318-7803, fax
MTC-00033588
From: David Burgess
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Esq.
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 27, 2002
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Re: Proposed Final Judgment (Microsoft Antitrust Case)
I am writing to submit my comments on the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment in the civil antitrust case, United States of America vs.
Microsoft Corp. I have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, the
Complaint and Stipulation in the case, as well as the Competitive
Impact Statement, and other documents and decisions related to this
case. I urge the Department of Justice to settle this case on the
proposed terms of settlement, and urge the Court to accept this
settlement as being fair, reasonable, enforceable, and in the public
interest.
[[Page 30141]]
Public Interest Is Served
I am one of those consumers whose interests are so frequently
cited when antitrust and other laws are invoked, but whose actual
opinions are so seldom sought or considered by litigants and
commercial interests. I am not affiliated with Microsoft or any of
its lines of business. Nor am I affiliated with any of Microsoft's
competitors, although I have been solicited by some of them to
oppose this proposed settlement. I write on my own behalf, and not
as part of any organized so-called ``grass-roots''
lobbying campaign. Having followed this case in the media for
several years, and having reviewed the voluminous documents on this
case available on the DOJ website, I suspect that I will be among a
very few individual consumers who are submitting their own comments
on this proposed settlement, rather than repeating the conflicting
claims, or advocating the commercial interests, of clients,
competitors, employers, etc.
Public Interest In Ending Costly Litigation
The proposed final judgment and settlement is fair and
reasonable because it brings an end to a lengthy and costly
antitrust action (perhaps the longest and costliest ever), and does
so in a way that is enforceable. I urge the court to consider that
the public's (and the taxpayers') interests can be served quite
effectively when the D0J and private concerns agree to settle
expensive litigation in a reasonable manner.
Fortunately, we do not allow only commercial interests to
balance the costs of proceeding against the risks of an uncertain
case. The concept behind settling uncertain--but certainly
costly--litigation is just as valid when the government is a
party, as when the dispute is between two businesses. (And public
interests can additionally be served later by alternative use of
taxpayers, funds that otherwise would disappear in continuing costly
litigation.)
Settlement Recognizes Technology and Velocity of Change
The proposed settlement is also reasonable because it takes into
account the velocity of change and innovation in the relevant
technology markets. In fact, from the consumer's perspective, the
relevant markets change literally every day, with each new
innovation and technical improvement. This volume and velocity of
change affects OEMs, computer operating and communications systems,
routing and networking approaches, and internet applications,
portal, service and content providers (ISPs, ICPs, OLSPs, etc.), as
well as their ancillary software, middleware, related hardware, and
integrated (or isolated) features. Despite the claims of some
manufacturers and service providers, there is enormous intellectual
competition in these markets and those making claims that innovation
has been stifled know that is false: they know that this competition
exists, and they themselves benefit from it every day.
Opposition to this proposed settlement seems to be as much an
effort to punish Microsoft for the fact that the marketplace has
changed, as it is an effort to seek redress for Microsoft's
wrongdoing. Personally, like millions of others, I use a broad
variety of products and services that would be covered by the
proposed settlement. I regularly use internet browsers manufactured
by Netscape and by Microsoft; I have used e-mail accounts through
both AOL and MSN; everyday I consult a wide variety of ICPs, use the
MS operating systems, and also use Sun's products and services. My
middleware and invisible software applications are equally
intermixed. Through mutual funds I am probably invested in
Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, AOL, and countless other corporations
whose commercial prospects will be affected by this settlement, and
by the changes in the market. This constant and extensive
intermingling of technology and economic interest represents the
power and reason of the marketplace, and of the millions of
consumers who demonstrate daily that competition still remains
vibrant amidst rapidly changing technologies.
Settlement Imposes Reasonable Penalties
As to alleged injuries from Microsoft's marketing and
manufacturing conduct, I have not noticed or suffered from the
alleged predations of Microsoft, but don't doubt that some have. At
the same time, It is evident that the primary interests opposing
this proposed settlement today are those who seek to hold back the
oceans and thus to stop the tides.
No amount of litigation or monetary damages can make a non-
competitive product innovative. That product might still be
worthwhile to someone if it is cheap enough; but it will ultimately
be left behind by every fast-changing market. Even cheap buggy whips
have no meaningful market, not matter how well-made they are, nor
how committed or celebrated their designers and manufacturers may
be.
On the other hand, excessive litigation costs can easily make an
innovative product too costly for consumers to use. Increasing the
cost of a Ford's Model A by layering on litigation and legal
expenses could have delayed the day when the automobile would
replace the horse and buggy, but it would have done little to
advance the public's ultimate interests. No amount of subsidy or
economic penalty can prevent the marketplace from adopting or
rejecting technological changes on their own merits. Moreover, I
don't believe that the purposes of the Clayton and Sherman Acts
would be served at all by creating expensive impediments to systems
integration and innovation, merely to preserve a market share for
alternative systems that marketplace forces (i.e., we consumers)
have already rejected as lesser products or services.
Settlement Proposes Enforceable Remedies
Finally, the proposed settlement and judgment are appropriate
because they are enforceable. They are forward looking remedies,
which do take account of the nature of the relevant technology
markets. The settlement does recognize that unlawful behavior should
be stopped, and that recompense should be demanded and paid in a way
that advances the public's interests.
But it does not confuse those worthy objectives with the cries
of other OEMs, ISPs, ICP, etc. for commercial subsidies, dressed UP
as their claims of unremitting anti-competitive behavior. The
proposed remedies do impose a new cost on Microsoft, and therefore
will plainly benefit Netscape, AOL, CompuServe, Sun, etc. But the
costs will benefit consumers and the public more directly. The
business limitations and restraints that the settlement imposes on
Microsoft will similarly benefit the public ``in an enforceable
way'' by assuring continued competition AND allowing continued
innovation and integration.
Limitations on Microsoft's business practices will also benefit
Microsoft's competition but only to the extent that that they
themselves are competitive. The proposed settlement does not attempt
to create a new competitor where it does not exist, nor does it
attempt to prop up a non-competitive business that wishes to, but
finds it cannot, actually compete with Microsoft or any other firm.
All in all, I believe that the Court should accept the Revised,
Judgment and Settlement of this unique anti-trust case as being in
the public interest.
Proposed Final
Sincerely yours,
David Burgess
Arlington, VA 22201-1037
Note: I have also enclosed these comments as TEXT and WORD
attachments for your convenience.
David Burgess
Director
Democracy Fellows Program
World Learning, Inc.
1015 15th Street, NW
Suite 750 Washington, DC
tel. (202) 408-5420
fax (202) 408-5397
e-mail:
20005
[email protected]
MTC-00033589
From: Henry Thode
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry Thode
1660 Gulf Blvd.
Englewood, Fl 34223
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30142]]
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 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,
Henry F. Thode, Jr..
MTC-00033590
From: Ben Roth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ben Roth
1311 Stonington Dr
Youngstown, OH 44505-1657
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ben J Roth
MTC-00033591
From: David Ceton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Ceton
3310 Saw Mill Rd.
Newtown Square, PA 19073-1902
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
[[Page 30143]]
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,
David E. Ceton
MTC-00033592
From: David Mandel
To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
Subject: Comments regarding Microsoft Antitrust/Settlement and
Resolution
28 January 2002
Your Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly:
I've been involved in computing for most of my professional
career.
--As a university faculty member specializing in mathematical
data analysis and mathematical modeling in the 1970s and 1980s.
--As a government contractor specializing in Geographic
Information Systems in the 1980s and 1990s.
--And currently as an project leader developing developing
internet servers which are more secure and easier to use.
--I have also been active in the Open Source / Open Data
movement starting in the 1970s. --I'm currently Technical
Director of LinuxFund.org
--and President of the Portland (Oregon) Linux/Unix Group
I use and love a number of Micro Soft products, and I often
recommend Micro Soft products because I think some of their products
are very good.
On the other hand, I am very concerned about monopolies in the
computer industry; and I do think Micro Soft is a monopoly as the
courts have already ruled. Moreover, I do not believe any of the
proposed settlements are sufficient to keep Micro Soft from
continuing it's unfair business practices. Indeed, now that things
have pretty much been settled, Micro Soft seems to feel free to once
again threaten companies and users who don't use Micro Soft products
exclussively. At least, these are the rumors I hear.
For example, Micro Soft has been telling resellers to drop their
Linux products or else they will only be allowed to handle certain
Micro Soft products. As I understand, resellers selling Linux
products will not be allowed to sell MS Office 2000 or the any of
the Windows operating systems above Windows-XP. If this is true,
this will hurt me and my employees very much as we build Linux
server products.
As another example, Micro Soft now provides ISP services for
Qwest DSL customers. Since Qwest changed to Micro Soft a number of
things have changed. People keep coming to me saying that they have
been told that only MS Windows based computers will be supported on
Qwest DSL. I have heard this from both Linux users and Apple users.
Of course, this is non-sense. I assume that non-Windows computers
will work just fine with Qwest DSL. They just won't be supported.
However, Qwest (who is simply Micro Soft's proxy in this matter) is
giving people the impression that they will have to change to MS
Windows if they want to continue using Qwest; and of course they
have little choice if they are in the middle of something like a one
year contract for their DSL service.
Thank you for reading my comments. I hope you are able to
recommend a settlement which will end Micro Soft's monopolistic
practices, and allow everyone including Micro Soft to compete on a
fair and equal basis.
Sincerely,
David Mandel
President
Portland Linux/Unix Group
1440 NE 59th
Portland, Oregon 97213
(360) 260-2066 at work
(541) 730-5285 cell
Also, Technical Director of LinuxFund.org which is an
international group whose purpose is the raise funds to support
innovative Open Source projects.
MTC-00033593
From: Clarence George
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clarence George
2922 S Skyline Dr
Inverness, FL 34450-7422
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Clarence M. George
MTC-00033594
From: Mary N Morris
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 12:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
Sirs:
It is high time for us to haul up our britches and prune
constrictive capitalism at the root.
Please give America access to Microsoft. Let's make America
sustainable!
Sincerely
Mary M. Morris
501
909 West Central
Missoula, MT 59801
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033595
From: Telly Lovelace
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Telly Lovelace
126 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2118
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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
[[Page 30144]]
Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Telly Lovelace
MTC-00033596
From: Owen Mattingly
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Owen Mattingly
2241 Monocacy Rd
Baltimore, MD 21221-1529
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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. I can also
understand keeping a company from gouging the public, but if they
want to give away or make their product better by adding something
to it for free, I find that to the consumers benefit. Furthermore,
to this point most of the high tech industry has only gotten better
and cheaper. Oh yes, it has been through innovation and productivity
that made it possible.
Sincerely,
Owen Mattingly
MTC-00033597
From: Barb Koch
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software
programs and will give consumers more services and products to
choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Barb Koch
300 Bucklin St.
LaSalle, IL 61301-2065
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033598
From: Nicholas Yankanich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nicholas Yankanich
126 Chestnut Street
Aliquippa, PA 15001-2315
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has
[[Page 30145]]
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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Nicholas A Yankanich
MTC-00033599
From: Melvin R. Blann III
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Melvin R. Blann III
17379 Chase Road
Fulton, Il 61252
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Melvin R. Blann III
MTC-00033600
From: Diane Whitlock
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Whitlock
PO Box 44
Martinsville, VA 24114-0044
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost taxpayers more than $35 million, and final
approval is clearly in the public interest.
The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all
sides of this case. Consumers will be able to select a variety of
pre-installed software on their computers,and it will be easier to
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well.
The country needs the economic stability this settlement can
provide. I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Diane C Whitlock
MTC-00033601
From: Eugene Marin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene Marin
99 Bog Rd
Hillsboro, NH 03244
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30146]]
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 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,
Eugene P. Marin
MTC-00033602
From: Richard Keene
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Keene
328 Schooner Ave.
Edgewater, Fl 32141
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard N. Keene
MTC-00033603
From: Steve Wagner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Wagner
7930 So. Monaco Court
Englewood, CO 80112
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30147]]
submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District
Court without change.
Sincerely,
Steve Wagner
MTC-00033604
From: Richard Hathaway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Hathaway
2040 Duck Lake Rd.
Whitehall, MI 49461-9691
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard G. Hathaway
MTC-00033605
From: Greg Wolfgram
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Wolfgram
8131 Mulberry Place
Dublin, CA 94568
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Greg Wolfgram
MTC-00033606
From: Betty Pawlak
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Issue
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice is fair and reasonable, and I am in full
support of it. The American economy is in need of all the help it
can get, and allowing Microsoft to get out of court and turn all of
their attention to business is a great way to help.
The recession that we are currently in actually can be traced to
the suit against Microsoft. The market started to slip three years
ago when the suit was announced, and kept going down. In order to
get out of the hole that we are in, Microsoft and the rest of the IT
industry must perform at peak levels. The settlement encourages such
performance by restricting retaliation from Microsoft against
competitors who produce and promote software that competes with
Microsoft's. The settlement also mandates that Microsoft document to
their competitors, interface data internal to Windows. This assists
in the compatibility between competing software firms.
All in all, the settlement will encourage competition and be
beneficial to the economy. I fully support the settlement.
Sincerely,
Balvina Pawlak
10 Molasses Hill Road
Lebanon, New Jersey 08833
MTC-00033607
From: Loretta Frey
[[Page 30148]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Loretta Frey
2506 N Hogan
Spokane, WA 99207
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Loretta Frey
MTC-00033610
From: AL BORTLES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AL BORTLES
2166 E. MEADOW WOOD DR.
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
AL BORTLES
MTC-00033611
From: Robert E Lehnherr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert E Lehnherr
3631 South 257th Street
Kent, WA 98032-5669
January 29, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Robert E Lehnherr
MTC-00033612
From: eugene shafer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
eugene shafer
78237 willowrich dr
[[Page 30149]]
palm desert, , ca 92211
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Eugene Shafer
MTC-00033613
From: Consumers for Computing Choice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, v.Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant. STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER,
et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
COMMENTS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL
JUDGEMENT SUBMITTED BY CONSUMERS FOR COMPUTING CHOICE AND OPEN
PLATFORM WORKING GROUP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Overview
II. The Court Should Hold Thorough Public Proceedings on Remedies
and Provide Substantial Opportunities for Full Participation by
Citizens and Organizations that Represent the Consumer Interest
III. The Court Should Reject the Proposed Settlement and Final
Judgment Because It Fails to Address the All-Important Applications
Barrier to Entry and Other Essential Elements of a Competitive
Market in Computing Platforms
IV. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Windows Applications on
Any Other Operating System
V. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final Judgment
That Does Not Provide a Way to Make Microsoft Office Available on
Any Other Operating System
VI. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Competing Productivity
Applications on Any Other Operating System and Interoperate with
Microsoft Applications
VII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Internet Explorer and
Other Microsoft Internet Applications on Any Other Operating System
VIII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Competing Internet
Applications on Operating System and Interoperate with Microsoft
Applications
IX. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way for Developers and Consumers to
Remove and Replace Components of Microsoft Products with Superior or
Special Purpose Components
X. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final Judgment
That Does Not Deprive Microsoft of the Power to Control the
Computing Hardware Market
XI. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Provide Equal Access to the Existing OEM
Distribution Channel
XIII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment Less Than 10 Years in Duration
XIV.The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final
Judgment That Does Not Have Very Strong Provisions for Enforcement
and Very Serious Consequences for Violation of Disclosure
Requirements and Other Mandates
XV.Conclusion
APPENDIXES
A. Motion for Hearing on The Issues Presented
B. Offer of Proof
I. Introduction
As Consumers for Computing Choice stressed in the brief it filed
with the District Court, consumers will need advanced computing
applications to enjoy the benefits of the coming digital age. These
applications rely on a new generation of state-of-the-art operating
systems and microprocessors. A number of more advanced operating
systems and related microprocessor technologies are endangered
because of a Windows standard arising from Microsoft's misuse of its
monopoly power.
The Microsoft case will determine whether competition in
information technology occurs among a diversity of innovative
software producers or is limited to a few monolithic companies. In
order to ensure robust competition, we propose that the Court
include in any Final Judgment remedies that will rapidly and
reliably erode the applications barrier to entry by enabling state
of the art operating systems to compete on a level playing field.
The most important of these remedies is to provide a way to enable
the 70,000 applications supported by Windows to run on any modern
operating system.
Now that the Appeals Court has rejected Plaintiffs structural
remedies, the District Court must seriously review the currently
proposed Final Judgment to determing whether it will enable Windows
applications to run on other operating systems. Consumers for
Computing Choice believe it will not. The applications barrier is
here now, it is limiting consumer choice and innovation now, and it
can be addressed now. We urge the court to reject the proposed
settlement and Final Judgment and replace them with a Final Judgment
that includes remedies that provide for interoperability of Windows
applications with any other modern operating system and other
related interoperability.
Our recommended remedies are directly focused on the
applications barrier to entry, providing an essential addition to
their proposed remedies. Microsoft's compliance with these remedies
will create an immediate change in market incentives, opening a path
to adoption of a number of advanced operating systems and creating
attractive competitive opportunities for ISVs to write applications
for these systems. In the interest
[[Page 30150]]
of robust competition, innovation, and consumer choice, the Court
should reject the settlement and Proposed Final Judgement and
replace it with a Final Judgment that includes these remedies.
II. Hold Thorough Public Proceedings With Consumer Participation
The Court should hold thorough public proceedings on remedies
and provide opportunities for full participation by citizens and
organizations that represent the consumer interest. Robust
competition and innovation in software are crucial to our short- and
long-term economic recovery. No industry was more crucial to the
economic prosperity in the 1990s. Yet the incentives for innovation
have been destroyed by Microsoft's increasing monopolization of the
most common categories of software. There is no incentive for any
company to create a new operating system, productivity suite, or
Internet browser. Computer hardware manufacturers cannot profitably
innovate as long as Microsoft has the power to control the
specification for microprocessor architecture and other hardware
components. OEMs have become little more than value added resellers
with minimal influence over design decisions. If present trends
continue, the only incentives for innovation will be in the most
obscure niches.
Moreover, American prosperity in the coming century will depend
on our ability to increase our quality of life while reducing
resource consumption and environmental pollution. Just as machines
supplanted physical labor in the past, software will supplant much
of the work done by industrial-era machines in the future. During
the last century, machines improved labor productivity by a factor
of 40. Software has the potential to provide similarly dramatic
improvements.
Consumers are the major player in the computer market without a
seat at the Microsoft and Justice Department negotiating table. In
1974 Congress passed the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15
U.S.C. sec 16), designed to provide the public with the opportunity
to comment on a proposed Final Judgment. This act also required the
benefiting party, in this case Microsoft, to file a Competitive
Impact statement (CIS) to provide essential information for the
public. Microsoft has failed to do so.
Former California Senator John Tunney, the author the
legislation, filed an affidavit in this proceeding that says
Microsoft's filing is inadequate to satisfy the clear language and
intent of the Tunney Act. Microsoft does not reveal what its
President Steve Balmer spoke about with Vice President Dick Chaney
when they met. News sources report that Attorney General Ashcroft
received campaign contributions from sources politically connected
with Microsoft. In a similar situation with Enron, Ashcroft recused
himself. He should do the same in this case.
It is not possible to have the most robust and accessible
information system without the full participation of capable
consumers. By withholding information, Microsoft is denying
consumers information they need. Without the information, consumers
are handicapped in effectively pointing out Microsoft's limitations
and failures. Consumers must be informed, and they have the right to
be heard. These are essential developments if the desktop and
Internet are to grow into their potential as an integrated sphere of
rapid, accurate, and dependable communication. If Microsoft has its
way the potential computing revolution on our doorstep will remain a
potential. Consumers need ``Four Freedoms'' to benefit
from a competitive market in computing platforms. The first is the
freedom to switch to any new operating system without abandoning
their investment in applications. The second is the freedom to
switch to any new application without abandoning the documents and
data they have created. The third is the freedom to replace any
component or feature in an operating system or application with
superior or special purpose components. The fourth is the freedom to
switch to any new microprocessor architecture without abandoning
their investment in an operating system.
Microsoft denies the Four Freedoms. Its comprehensive strategy
locks products together, excludes superior competitors, and raise
switching costs for consumers. The Court should insist that any
settlement or Final Judgment enables the Four Freedoms.
III. Address the Essential Elements of a Competitive Market in
Computing Platforms
In the early 1990s, experts recognized that the basic
architecture of existing platforms was inadequate to meet the needs
of the emerging digital age. This realization led to a wave of
extraordinary innovation in computing. Visionary business leaders,
engineers, marketers, and investors brought together their resources
to create a wave of new products and possibilities. New operating
systems from IBM, NeXT, and Be offered improved stability, speed,
and application development. The PowerPC microprocessor and its
Common Hardware Reference Platform came into service. Internet
software like Netscape Navigator changed how people use the
Internet. The OpenStep and Java cross-platform application
environments enabled developers to write an application once and run
it on multiple platforms.
With these innovations came the promise of a new generation of
digital media applications. Unfortunately, most of these products
are now road kill in Microsoft's quest to seize control of the
information superhighway. IBM's OS/2 is now a niche product
(Findings of Fact, 46). NeXT was acquired by Apple and used to
extend the life of the aging Macintosh platform. OpenStep for Intel
and Open Step for Windows were removed from Apple's price list
shortly after the so-called normalization of relations between
Microsoft and Apple in 1997. Java's potential has been diminished by
Microsoft's efforts to introduce an incompatible version. Netscape's
market share has continued to decline since it was acquired by
America Online.
More recently, while the current case was underway, Microsoft
drove Be from the operating system market by threatening computer
makers who had agreed to bundle Be as a second operating system.
Microsoft threatened prohibitive increases in Windows licensing fees
and refused to allow installation of a boot loader that would allow
consumers running Windows to reboot their computers into the Be
operating system. The state-of-the-art Be technology was sold to
Palm for the fire sale price of $11 million, approximately one day
of Microsoft profits.
The market conditions needed to protect competition, innovation,
and consumer choice are straightforward. Competition must be a la
carte, no less fine-grained than the process of innovation.
Everything must be able to run on everything. Developers must be
free to remove, replace and combine components, and compete on the
merits of each component. This will ensure robust competition, with
innovators vying to improve components and vendors competing to
assemble them in different combinations. There will be little
competition or dynamism in the market for platform software if
neither innovators nor users can replace anything without having to
replace everything. No company or alliance can replace Wintel and
its all its third party products at the drop of a hat.
Because Netscape had no applications barrier to entry to
protectit, it was ported to more than fifteen different operating
systems (Findings of Fact, 69). Operating system vendors
differentiated the graphical user interface into a separate layer,
allowing the application environment to use the graphical interface
of the host operating system on which it was running and to permit
special interfaces. This occurs naturally in a competitive market.
Everyone wants his software to run on every other platform, and
everyone wants software from others to run on his platform.
Competitors have incentives to cooperate, establish standards, and
publish interfaces to ensure interoperability. In a truly
competitive market, there would be a wide variety of component
combinations. Operating systems with multiple application
environments would be common. Developers would be able to write for
the application environments with the best capabilities for their
specific application. Consumers would be able to choose operating
systems and application environments with the best capabilities for
their most demanding applications.
A competitive market would provide companies real incentives to
pursue breakthrough innovations. Small producers with an idea for
one great application or one great component would have a chance to
bring it to market. Network effects would be counterbalanced by the
benefits of cross-platform application environments. A number of
operating systems would have substantial market share. Absent an
applications barrier to entry, developers would promote these
benefits. Consumers would readily recognize these benefits and
demand them.
This is not speculative. Automobile manufacturing and customer
service have substantial network effects, yet Chevrolet, Ford,
Toyota and Honda, Porsche, and Ferrari still have dealer and service
networks. They allow third-party products to enhance performance.
Among the most important breakthroughs in computing is the fact
that operating systems now rely on modular design. A
[[Page 30151]]
modern operating system includes a core operating system that
schedules tasks for processing. Three basic layers correspond to the
basic functions of an operating system recognized by the Court
(Findings of Fact, 2 and 7). In a modular operating system each of
these major layers includes a number of distinct modules. Software
developers can easily add or replace modules with superior or
special purpose components without hidden code dependencies
interfering with the rest of the system.
Another important benefit of modern operating system
architecture is that it permits multiple application environments to
run well on the same core operating system. This will allow
consumers have an older application environment to run legacy
applications and a modern application environment to perform
demanding tasks, without maintaining two large, complex operating
systems on one computer (Findings of Fact, 49).
In an important sense this case is about the important
contributions multiple application environments on a single core
operating system can make to competition, innovation, and consumer
choice. Netscape Navigator and Sun's Java both provided cross-
platform application environments that could run along with the
standard application environment on different operating systems. If
similarly adaptable applications are allowed to thrive in a truly
free market, consumers will enjoy smooth migration of older
technology and early adoption of the new technology crucial to full
participation in the digital age.
IV. Provide a Way to Run Windows Applications on Any Other Operating
System
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not provide a way to run Windows applications on
any other operating system. The applications barrier to entry is the
central issue of this case. The installed base of 70,000 Windows
applications is by far the most formidable element of this barrier.
A competing operating system must have a large and varied base of
compatible applications to reassure consumers that it will meet
their computing needs (Findings of Fact, 40). The massive installed
base of Windows applications makes this prohibitively difficult and
expensive (Findings of Fact, 46). As the Court recognized, the
developer of a rival operating system could in theory circumvent
this barrier by cloning the Windows APIs so that the applications
written for Windows would then also run on that system (Findings of
Fact, 52). The new competitor would not be able to translate this
into practice, however, because it would never have all the current
Windows APIs.
Widespread availability of a Windows Application Environment on
all other operating systems would reduce this barrier to entry. A
Windows Application Environment would be similar in structure and
function to a Java Runtime Environment (Findings of Fact, 73). It
would break the dependent relationship between Windows and the
70,000 applications written for the Windows APIs and allow those
applications to work with other operating systems. This reduced
barrier to entry would immediately encourage investment in the
development and marketing of operating systems. Consumers could
choose a superior core operating system with a modern application
environment based on its features, without worrying about legacy
Windows applications. This would substantially reduce the costs of
migrating to other operating systems. No other remedy would do so
much to restore competition, innovation, and consumer choice. IBM
recognized the important benefits of a Windows Application
Environment when it invested tens of millions of dollars to clone
the Windows APIs and enable Windows applications to run on its OS/2
operating system (Findings of Fact, 46). Sun Microsystems made a
similar investment to develop a Windows Application Environment for
its Solaris operating system.
A number of third party software developers have made serious
efforts to implement the Windows APIs on other operating systems.
The open source WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) project has
implemented a sufficient percentage of the Windows APIs on the Linux
operating system to run selected Windows applications. A WINE
project for Apple's OS X operating system is also in progress. The
BeWine project, organized by a small group of software developers
who needed access to the installed base of Windows applications,
made substantial progress implementing Windows APIs on the state-of-
the- art Be operating system. This project has been shelved since
1999 when Microsoft drove Be from the operating system market. A
network of Be developers around the world is now working to
resurrect the Be operating system, and BeWine will be one of its
highest priorities. The new Lindows operating system is implementing
Windows APIs as a way for consumers to run some of the major Windows
applications on Linux. A preliminary version of Lindows will soon be
released to the public.
In all of these projects, the major obstacle is the lack of
complete and accurate disclosure of the Windows APIs and related
technical specifications. Moreover, Microsoft frequently changes
APIs. Often these are gratuitous changes intended only to frustrate
interoperability. Yet Microsoft allows implementation of Windows
APIs when it serves the company's interests. At least two ISVs,
Mainsoft and Bristol, offer tools that implement the Windows APIs on
Unix operating systems. They do it in markets where Microsoft is not
the dominant vendor; i.e., in markets where Microsoft favors
interoperability. These implementations work well because Mainsoft
and Bristol have the benefit of Microsoft source code licenses, and
need not be concerned about the completeness or accuracy of its API
disclosure.
There are three major ways for the Court to ensure the
availability of the installed base of Windows applications on all
other operating systems.
Mandatory Porting
The first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory
ports of a Windows Application Environment to other operating
systems. The initial ports should be to the five operating systems
offered by competitors mentioned in the Findings of Fact. This
approach should require native and optimized ports that work well
with the unique features of the host operating systems. An advantage
of this approach is that it appropriately shifts the burden for
reducing the applications barrier to entry from disadvantaged
competitors to Microsoft.
These ports would be a very modest burden for a company as large
as Microsoft. Next Software, a company with fewer than 400 employees
and less than $50 million annual revenue, ported the OpenStep
operating system to four hardware platforms, and the OpenStep
application environment to four other operating systems. Third party
applications written for OpenStep ran properly on all these
platforms without additional porting. The entire project cost
approximately $10 million. While the Windows code base is larger and
more commingled, that is hardly an excuse for Microsoft to escape
any additional burden that may result. These costs will be modest
compared to the immense monopoly rents Microsoft has enjoyed as a
result of the applications barrier to entry. Microsoft should be
required to sell these products to OEMs, ISVs, IHVs, and end users
at a price not to exceed fifty per cent of the lowest price for any
Windows Operating System Product. There would also need to be
provisions for adding new operating systems at minimum cost to their
developers.
A disadvantage of mandatory ports is the risk that Microsoft
would likely attempt to delay progress or produce low-quality ports.
Strong enforcement and serious sanctions for violations would be
necessary to ensure compliance.
Mandatory Licenses to Port Windows Application Environment
Another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer licenses
to port Windows Application Environments to any other operating for
which its developer or a third party requests one. The advantage of
this approach is that developers or third parties would rapidly be
able to develop high quality products to market on any operating
system. The developers of new and innovative operating systems
offering the greatest potential consumer benefit are likely to have
limited access to capital. Accordingly, a limited number of licenses
should not be allocated by auction alone. A small number of major
licensees could limit availability to their preferred operating
systems and raise barriers to entry for small and innovative
operating system developers. Moreover, Microsoft might attempt to
control this process by encouraging compliant, though formally
unaffiliated, ISVs to acquire licenses and limit their use to
operating systems that present no competitive threat.
Instead, at least one license should be issued for each
operating system for which a port is requested by its developer or
any third party. The initial license fee should be no more than an
amount sufficient to cover Microsoft's administrative costs
associated with licensing. Microsoft should then receive a per unit
royalty from ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs not to exceed twenty-five per cent
of the
[[Page 30152]]
lowest royalty paid for any Windows Operating System Product.
Mandatory Disclosure of Interfaces and Technical Information
The third approach is to order that Microsoft fully disclose all
of the functional specifications for APIs, other interfaces, and
technical information necessary for competent software developers to
implement their own Windows Application Environments on any other
operating system. The advantage of this approach is that it would
leverage the efforts of existing projects working to create Windows
Application Environments.
The required disclosure should include the right to the
technical information about file systems needed to read the files on
a disk partition on which Microsoft products are installed. This
will permit consumers to install multiple operating systems on the
same computer or home network.
This approach should also require Microsoft to grant a license
of any intellectual property rights it claims are necessary to
produce and sell these products. The license should be royalty-free
and available on nondiscriminatory terms. The court should make it
clear that `nondiscrimatory'' requires that open source
projects and their commercial derivatives are entitled to all of the
benefits of these disclosures and licenses, provided that no
Microsoft source code is incorporated into open source products.
Finally, Microsoft should be prohibited from including in its
licensing terms any requirement that its software not be installed
on computers with other operating systems. This will make consumers
free to install and use existing Microsoft applications on other
operating systems.
The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States offer
significant though partial steps toward this third approach. Section
4(a) (i) of their Remedial Proposal requires Microsoft to disclose
all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that
Microsoft employs to enable each Microsoft (emphasis added)
application to Interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software
installed on the same Personal Computer.
The Plaintiff Litigating States clearly recognized the
importance of disclosing these interfaces. The APIs Microsoft
employs to enable Microsoft applications to interoperate with
Windows include almost all the APIs it employs to enable Windows
applications written by third parties to interoperate with Windows.
However, there are a small number of APIs that are called only by
third party Windows applications. Disclosure of all of these APIs is
essential in order to reduce the applications barrier to entry and
enable consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing Windows
applications on any other operating system.
It is likely that the Plaintiff Litigating States did not
distinguish between these sets of APIs and intended that this remedy
include the APIs used for all Windows applications. Nevertheless,
the Court should insist that disclosure include all the APIs. The
remedy could easily be changed to reflect this by requiring that
Microsft disclose all APIs, Technical Information and Communications
Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable all Microsoft and/or
third party Windows applications to Interoperate with Microsoft
Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer.
The Windows APIs are the centerpiece of Microsoft's monopoly
power. The Court should now use that monopoly power to reverse the
effects of its abuse and move Microsoft toward open, cross-platform
competition. This would allow the market to begin to recover. The
Court noted (Findings of Fact, 29) that it would take several years
for middleware and the applications it supports to evolve into a
competitive threat to Windows. This has yet to occur. Moreover, the
prospects are worse than they were in 1995 because Microsoft now
dominates the market for browsers and may be able to leverage that
dominance.
The Court should correct for this market failure by ensuring
that any Final Judgment contains at least one of the remedies that
will enable the installed base of 70,000 applications that comprise
the applications barrier to entry to run on any other operating
system.
V. Make Native Ports of Microsoft Office Available on Any Other
Operating System
VI. Provide a Way to Make Native Ports of Microsoft Office Available on
Any Other Operating System
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not provide a way to make native ports of
Microsoft Office available on any other operating system. This is
another direct and certain way to address the applications barrier
to entry. In a competitive market, many consumers will choose
operating systems because their features and benefits are necessary
for advanced multimedia, networking, or other digital-age
applications. Nevertheless, for many consumers, Office remains their
one indispensable application. Its importance is highlighted by its
role in the controversies between Microsoft and IBM and Microsoft
and Apple. Unfortunately, the dependencies between Microsoft
applications and Windows are another formidable element of the
applications barrier to entry. Office and Internet Explorer are now
dominant in most work environments, and most consumers need
compatible applications at home. Office has proprietary file
formats, APIs, and other features that add dependencies. If there is
to be real competition in operating systems and other platform
software, the dominance of Microsoft Office applications must not be
allowed to favor Windows over other competitors.
Cross-platform ports of Office applications will ensure that
consumers and businesses are free to choose alternative operating
systems based on their distinct features and benefits. Porting
Office to competing platforms is more certain and immediate than
relying on other ISVs to develop productivity applications for them.
Since their market share is presently low, there are few incentives
for ISVs to write for them. There are two major ways for the Court
to ensure the availability of Office applications on all other
operating systems.
Mandatory Porting
The first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory
ports of its Office applications to other operating systems. The
initial ports should be to the five operating systems offered by
competitors mentioned in the Findings of Fact. This approach should
require native and optimized ports that work well with the unique
features of the host operating systems.
An advantage of this approach is that it appropriately shifts
the burden for reducing the applications barrier to entry from
disadvantaged competitors to Microsoft. The price charged for these
products to ISVs, IHVs, OEMs and end users would need to be limited
to the comparable price of Office for Windows. There would also need
to be provisions for adding new operating systems at minimum cost to
their developers. A disadvantage of mandatory ports is the risk that
Microsoft would likely attempt to delay progress or produce low-
quality ports. Although mandatory ports of complex Silcon Graphics
software worked well, strong enforcement and serious sanctions for
violations would be necessary to ensure that Microsoft complies.
The specialized Macintosh Business Unit established by Microsoft
after the 1997 agreement to continue the port of Office for
Macintosh has demonstrated, with upgrades to Office and Internet
Explorer, that Microsoft can optimize ports to take advantage of
features not available on Windows. This optimization made a
noticeable difference in the user experience and is one of the few
positive results of the ``normalization'' between
Microsoft and Apple.
Microsoft should be required to continue its port of Office to
Apple operating systems. The existing agreement to port Office to
the Macintosh operating system expires this year. Microsoft could
again hold Apple hostage and demand concessions in exchange for
continuing this port. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff
Litigating States require this. However, Apple now has a modern
operating system with an advanced object- oriented application
environment called Cocoa. Apple asked Microsoft to port to this
application environment in 1997 and Microsoft declined. This was a
decisive factor in delaying the release of the new OS X operating
system and forcing Apple to add an interim application environment
to that operating system. Microsoft should be required to support
the most advanced application environment on any operating system to
which it ports Office. Any settlement or Final Judgment should
require that Microsoft port Office to the Cocoa application
environment within three years in order to allow Apple to shift the
orientation to this new technology.
Mandatory Licenses to Port Office
Another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer licenses
to port its Office applications to any other operating system for
which its developer or a third party requests one. The advantage of
this approach is that developers or third parties would rapidly be
able to develop high quality products to market on any operating
system. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff
[[Page 30153]]
Litigating States offer significant though partial steps toward this
approach. Section 14(b) of the Remedial Proposal submitted by the
states requires that Microsoft offer to sell at auction at least
three licenses to port Office to other operating systems without
further royalty beyond the auction price. The developers of new and
innovative operating systems offering the greatest potential
consumer benefit are likely to have limited access to capital.
Accordingly, a limited number of licenses should not be allocated by
auction alone. A small number of major licensees could limit
availability to their preferred operating systems and raise barriers
to entry for small and innovative operating system developers.
Moreover, Microsoft might attempt to control this process by
encouraging compliant though formally unaffiliated ISVs to acquire
licenses and limit their use to operating systems that present no
competitive threat.
Instead, at least one license should be issued for each
operating system for which its developer or a third party requests
one. The initial license fee should be no more than an amount
sufficient to cover Microsoft's administrative costs associated with
licensing. Microsoft should then receive a per-unit royalty from
ISVs, IHVs, OEMs, and end users indexed to a specified price for
Office.
VI. Provide a Way for Competing Productivity Applications to
Interoperate with Microsoft Applications.
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not provide a way to run competing productivity
applications on any other operating system and interoperate with
Microsoft applications. The importance of competition in operating
systems is to provide superior platforms that enable the development
of applications with richer features and compelling benefits to
consumers. Sustaining competition in operating systems will require
renewed competition in applications.
Microsoft's proprietary file formats are another significant
element of the applications barrier to entry. Their only benefit is
to exclude competitors. A vast amount of valuable data is held
captive in Office files. Just as consumers'' ability to carry
over their installed base of Windows applications to new platforms
is essential to restoring competition in the market for operating
systems, their ability to carry over data now held captive in
Microsoft files to new applications is essential to competition in
the markets for applications and, therefore, operating systems.
Any Final Judgment should require Microsoft to publish all file
formats needed to read, write, and save Office files.
Requiring Microsoft to publish these file formats will allow
consumers to migrate to new (and more advanced) applications without
losing data. This will provide ISVs with ample incentives to write
new applications for Windows and alternative operating systems and
ensure that, as market share grows, Microsoft applications are not
the only ones ported to competing systems.
Microsoft also uses its Object Linking and Embedding (OLE)
framework and other proprietary specifications for inter-application
communications instead of published APIs. These make it possible for
Office applications to exchange files, data, and services with other
Microsoft applications. These are yet another significant element of
the applications barrier to entry. Without open interfaces,
competing applications cannot exchange data with Office
applications.
Any Final Judgment should also require that Microsoft publish
the file formats of its applications and the specification for OLE
and other proprietary specifications needed for inter-application
communications.
Requiring Microsoft to publish these specifications will allow
consumers to choose productivity applications from multiple vendors
and still have the benefits of an integrated application suite. A
spreadsheet from one vendor could be combined with a drawing program
from another and a presentation program from a third. Consumers
could then replace one program without having to purchase another
complete suite and discard applications. This will increase
incentives for ISVs to write applications. Since ISVs will no longer
have to design an entire suite of software, a small ISV will be to
able to concentrate its resources on developing a more innovative
product for a single niche and will be able to compete more
effectively with larger ISVs.
VII. Provide a Way to Run Internet Explorer and Other Microsoft
Internet Applications on Any Other Operating System.
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not provide a way to make native ports of
Internet Explorer and other Microsoft Internet applications
available on any other operating system. This is another direct and
certain way to address the applications barrier to entry.
For many consumers, Internet Explorer is becoming another
indispensable application. Its importance is highlighted by its role
in the controversies between Microsoft and IBM and Microsoft and
Apple. Internet Explorer is now the dominant application for access
to the World Wide Web. If there is to be real competition in
operating systems and other platform software, the dominance of
Microsoft Internet applications must not be allowed to favor Windows
over other competitors. Cross-platform ports of Internet Explorer
and other Microsoft Internet applications will ensure that consumers
and businesses are free to choose alternative operating systems
based on their distinct features and benefits.
There are two major ways for the Court to ensure the
availability of Internet Explorer and other Microsoft Internet
applications on all other operating systems. As with Office, the
first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory ports of it
Internet Explorer to other operating systems. All the considerations
and provisions that apply to ports of Office should apply to
Internet Explorer, except that the ported products should remain
free as long as Internet Explorer for Windows is free. As with
Office, another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer
licenses to port Internet Explorer to any other operating system
that requests one. Again, all the considerations and provisions that
apply to licenses to port Office should apply to Internet Explorer,
except that the license fees would need to be very limited since
Explorer for Windows is a free product.
The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States offer a
more comprehensive approach. Section 12 of their Remedial Proposal
requires that Microsoft offer open source licenses to Explorer
source code without royalty. This approach will offer other
operating systems and consumers all the benefits that mandatory
porting or licenses to port will offer.
Since Microsoft's intent in offering Internet Explorer as a free
product was central to its unlawful conduct, the open source remedy
may be appropriate to restore competition and deprive Microsoft of
the fruits of its unlawful conduct. There is also much less
justification for protecting the source code of Explorer than there
is for Office or Windows.
Moreover, opening the source code of Internet Explorer will make
it more difficult for Microsoft to extend its triple monopoly and
create another set of secret de facto standards eliminating
competition for the architecture for distributed Internet computing
and the advanced networking applications. Any Final Judgment should
incorporate provisions to reduce the likelihood that Microsoft will
continue to create an ever more powerful monoculture on the web and
gain control of cyberspace in the same way it gained control of the
desktop.
Nevertheless, if the Court declines to adopt the remedy proposed
by the Plaintiff Litigating States, mandatory porting of Internet
Explorer or mandatory licenses to port it will assist in restoring
competition, innovation, and consumer choice in operating systems.
VIII. Provide a Way for Competing Internet Applications to Interoperate
with Microsoft Applications.
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not provide a way to run competing Internet
applications on any other operating system and interoperate with
Microsoft applications.
Microsoft's proprietary Internet interfaces, file formats, media
formats, codecs, and extensions are another significant element of
the applications barrier to entry. Their only benefit is to exclude
competitors. Any Final Judgment should require Microsoft to publish
these specifications.
Requiring Microsoft to publish them will allow consumers to
migrate to new Internet applications. It will provide ISVs with
ample incentives to write new Internet applications and ensure that
Microsoft applications are not the only ones ported to competing
systems.
Microsoft is also using proprietary specifications for inter-
application communications instead of published APIs in its Internet
applications. Any Final Judgment should also require that Microsoft
publish the specifications needed for inter-application
communications.
Requiring Microsoft to publish these specifications will allow
consumers to choose Internet applications from multiple vendors and
still have the benefits of integrated Internet applications.
[[Page 30154]]
The open source remedy proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating
States will offer other operating systems and consumers all the
benefits that disclosure of these specifications will offer.
Moreover, opening the source code will make it more difficult for
Microsoft to create an integrated Internet architecture that
excluded applications and components from other software developers
and deprived consumers of choice. Nevertheless, if the Court
declines to adopt that remedy, mandatory disclosure of these
specifications will assist in restoring competition, innovation, and
consumer choice in operating systems.
IX. Provide a Way to for Developers and Consumers to Remove and Replace
Components of Microsoft Products with Superior or Special
Purpose Components. Microsoft has regularly sacrificed best
practices, value added, and innovation to strategies that extend its
monopoly. Resources that could be invested in product improvement or
breakthrough innovation are consistently diverted to prevent
developers from substituting superior components and raise the
``switching costs'' for users who wish to replace
Microsoft products with preferred alternatives. After years of these
practices, an extraordinarily high proportion of the value of
Microsoft's intellectual property is in the unpublished interfaces
and communication protocols that exclude competitors. Microsoft's
relentless pursuit is promoted in the guise of
`integration.' This purported `integration'
neither makes its software run faster than comparable competing
software nor work more seamlessly. Indeed, the commingling of code
from so many components into the foundations of the operating system
is why its entire software monoculture is so vulnerable to
instability, security breaches, and viruses. The digital age
requires a better foundation.
X. Deprive Microsoft of the Power to Control the Computing Hardware
Market
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not deprive Microsoft of the power to control the
computing hardware market Microsoft monopoly power has externalities
in hardware choices as well as operating systems and applications.
The Court found that Microsoft was able to pressure Intel to stop
developing platform software because of Intel's dependency on
Microsoft support for Intel microprocessors (Findings of Fact, 102).
Since Intel is so dependent on Microsoft, Microsoft has the ability
to influence Intel's processor designs. Intel therefore embraces
strategies and technologies that favor Windows at the expense of
hardware innovations that would benefit superior operating systems.
Over the years, the technical dependencies between Windows and Intel
processors have increased.
These dependencies assist Microsoft in preserving the
applications barrier to entry. Locking Windows and Intel together
tends to lock others out of both the operating systems and
microprocessor markets. Since the market for personal computers that
run Windows is very profitable for Intel, these dependencies are
``golden handcuffs'' that limit Intel's freedom to design
the best processors. Intel's next generation processor architecture
is burdened with numerous legacy features that would likely not be
included if Microsoft did not insist on them, and the performance of
the prototypes has been disappointing.
Consumers have almost no alternatives to Intel-compatible
personal computers. This limitation is itself a result of
Microsoft's protection of the applications barrier to entry.
Microsoft initially supported the Common Hardware Reference Platform
(CHRP), an open PowerPC hardware platform that supported a number of
alternative operating systems including Macintosh, BeOS, and
Solaris. CHRP was an important habitat for other operating systems.
It was also a potential path for migration from Windows to these
operating systems, since it would have allowed consumers and
business to switch from one system to another without having to
purchase another computer. Accordingly, it was perhaps the most
significant threat to the dominance of the Wintel platform.
Microsoft abandoned its support for CHRP at a critical moment in the
platform's development. Apple abruptly withdrew its support shortly
after its so-called ``normalization'' of relations with
Microsoft in 1997. Without support from Microsoft and Apple,
critical customers lost confidence in the platform. CHRP has since
been dormant. Its successor, the PowerPC Open Platform, is sustained
mainly by the interest of Linux developers. Without additional
commercial support, this exceptional platform may be never be widely
available to consumers.
The Court should include in any Final Judgment provisions for
porting Windows to other hardware platforms with non-Intel
compatible microprocessors. The Court could require that Microsoft
port Windows to specified alternative microprocessors and recompile
its software to run on the versions of Windows ported to those
microprocessors. This would require the same sorts of provisions to
ensure a quality port that mandatory ports of other software would
require.
The Court could alternatively order Microsoft to issue source
code licenses for the purpose of porting Windows to any
microprocessor for which a port is requested. Since the number of
alternative microprocessor architectures is limited, this would
likely only require issuance of three or four licenses. Microsoft
should of course be entitled to receive a royalty on every unit of
these products. The royalty should be no greater than the lowest
royalty charged to an OEM for Intel-compatible versions of Windows.
XI. Provide Equal Access to the Existing OEM Distribution Channel
OEMs are the most important distribution channel for operating
systems (Findings of Fact, 54), middleware, and other software. Few
consumers will install an alternative operating system even as a
complement to Windows if it requires partitioning a disk drive and
reinstalling all Microsoft software or adding another disk drive.
Equal access to OEM distribution will level the playing field and
restore competition.
In 1998, while the current case was underway, Be attempted to
persuade Microsoft drove Be from the operating system market by
threatening computer makers who had agreed to bundle Be as a second
operating system with prohibitive increases in Windows licensing
fees and refusing to allow installation of a boot loader that would
allow consumers running Windows to reboot their computers into the
Be operating system. The Be technology was sold to Palm for $11
million.
Effective remedies must ensure that alternative operating
systems and other software products that compete with Microsoft's
monopoly products have immediate access to this distribution
channel. The Court should require in any Final Judgment that
Microsoft be prohibited from licensing any operating system,
applications, or middleware to an OEM for installation on a computer
unless each unit shipped with a Microsoft operating system also
includes alternative software products corresponding to the
Microsoft products installed on that computer.
Consumers would have the opportunity to experience the benefits
of alternative systems, and competitors who have been excluded from
coexistence with Microsoft on OEM computers would have new
incentives to invest. OEMs could use the choice of which competuing
products to offer in each category to differentiate their offerings.
This would impose no substantial financial burden on the OEMs.
Free distributions of Linux, BeOS, BSD Unix, and other alternative
operating systems are available. OEMs could shift responsibility for
support for these products to the manufacturers or other interested
parties. Consumer demand would develop for the products that offered
the most value, and OEMs could then charge for them.
XII. Minimum Term of Any Final Judgment
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment with a term of less than ten years. The AT&T case
indicates that, contrary to popular notions, ten years is not so
long in a dynamic industry. The recombining of the `Baby
Bells' began almost as soon as the Term of the Modified Final
Judgment expired. Meanwhile, their control of the `last
mile' of connectivity into consumer homes has enabled them to
drive Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and residential broadband
providers out of the market.
One lesson from this experience is that the last mile is a
commons that is essential for all competitors, and equal access to
that commons may need to continue until it no longer offers any
leverage to exclude competitors. Since interoperability remedies of
the sort provided in these comments are essential to establishing a
commons through which new competitors can enter markets controlled
by Microsoft, the Court should ensure that they are maintained for
at least a decade, or until competition in platform software is so
robust that Microsoft no longer has the ability or incentives to
control key interfaces.
Some of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices originated more
than a decade ago. The wave of anti-competitive conduct that
[[Page 30155]]
led to the filing of this case began six years ago. The magnitude of
the damage to related markets suggests that even well-designed, pro-
competitive remedies will require a decade to restore competition
and reverse the gains resulting from Microsoft's unlawful conduct.
XIII. Provisions for Enforcement and Consequences for Violation
The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final
Judgment that does not have strong provisions for enforcement and
serious consequences for violation of disclosure requirements and
other mandates. The Court should appoint a Special Master to monitor
and enforce Microsoft's compliance with the Final Judgment. The
Court should consider the voice of the Plaintiff Litigating States,
competitors, and consumer organizations in selecting the Special
Master. There should be provisions for selection of a replacement if
necessary and a way to prevent Microsoft from corrupting the
selection process in the event of political changes.
The Special Master must have the authority and resources to
thoroughly monitor and enforce Microsoft's compliance with the terms
of this Final Judgment. Most important, the Special Master will need
full access to all of Microsoft's source code for the purpose of
verifying the completeness and accuracy of its required disclosures.
Access to source code in a secure facility proposed in the remedial
proposal of the Plaintiff Litigating States does not adequately
enable competitors to verify the completeness and accuracy of
disclosure.
The settlement must also provide an effective `crown
jewel' provision that will deprive Microsoft of both the tools
and spoils of its illegal monopoly. There must be substantial
penalties for non-compliance. For the same reasons that protection
of the source code during verification is so great a concern for
Microsoft, placing the source code in the public domain would be the
best ``crown jewel'' provision.
IV. Conclusion
The Court should reject the proposed settlement and schedule
public proceedings. It must The Court should reject the proposed
settlement and schedule public proceedings. It must conduct its own
inquiry into both the ends that proper remedies must achieve and the
best means to achieve them.
These proceedings should include a significant opportunity for
consumers to participate, including the opportunity to propose
remedies, present evidence, and to argue for correcting the effect
of illegal monopoly. The remedies recommended in these comments
should be given serious consideration in those proceedings. Even
with the inclusion of these remedies in a settlement or Final
Judgment, competing operating systems and competing software face
uphill battles against the fruits of Microsoft's years of unlawful
conduct.
Competing products will still be disadvantaged by the large
investment in training that companies and consumers have on
Microsoft products and the great degree of familiarity information
technology professionals have with those products. Nevertheless,
these remedies offer the best chance to restore competition,
innovation, and consumer choice.
The scheduled proceedings on the Remedial Proposal submitted by
the Plaintiff States should complement rather than replace public
proceedings under the Tunney Act. The Court should also propose that
the Plaintiff Litigating States incorporate these recommendations
into a Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Although the remedies
proposed by these states are important and should be included in any
Final Judgment, their proposed remedies have been shaped more by the
debate between Microsoft and its competitors than by a consumer
voice.
The absence of a strong consumer presence is reflected in the
omission of some of the most basic remedies of importance to
consumers. The absence of these remedies create the likelihood that
the development of the information economy and culture promised by
the potential of computer technology will remain stymied and
undeveloped much as the telephone communicating system crept along
at a snails pace for the nearly one hundred years of the Bell
systems monopoly.
Opening up the Microsoft monopoly with serious remedies that
include the consumer interest in the final market place equation
will make possible the next leap in communication technology, and
with it the significant economic development, on the brink of which
society now stands. These new developments are to the Internet as
the Internet is to the telephone. Failure to include these consumer-
oriented remedies threatens society with economic downturns and
cultural stagnation. We urge the court not to accept the
economically and culturally crippling proposed final judgment.
James S. TurnerCharles D. Brown
ChairCounsel
Consumer for Computing ChoiceConsumers for Computing Choice
Drexel SprecherMichael Vlahos
Co-ChairCo-Chair
Open Platform Working GroupOpen Platform Working Group
APPENDIXES
A. Motion for Hearing on The Issues Presented#
1. This has been a common sense presentation#
2. Expert testimony will support it#
XIII. Interests of the Parties Submitting Comments#
A. Consumers for Computing Choice#
B.Open Platform Working Group#
B.Offer of Proof#
A. Witnesses#
B. Issues#
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff vs.Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Defendant STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Plaintiffs, vs. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION
Defendant Motion for Evidentiary Hearing
Defendant, Microsoft Corporation by the undersigned counsel
respectfully moves this honorable court for an evidentiary hearing
in the above captioned matter. As grounds for the motion, which are
more fully determined in the accompanying memorandum of points and
authority defendant, asserts:
1. Defendant has new evidence previously not considered by the court
2. The failure of the court to hear and consider this new evidence
would not only constitute a denial of due process and or would be
impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant and to other parties to
this case.
CONSUMERS FOR COMPUTING CHOICE
Executive Board
James S. Turner, Chair
Consumer Interest Lawyer
Swankin & Turner
Charles D. Brown
Consumer Interest Lawyer
Former Attorney General
State of West Virginia
Jeri Smith-Fornara
Arizona Consumer Council
Tom Andrews
Former United States Representative
State of Maine
President
New Economy Communications
Ira Arlook
Founder
Citizen Action
MTC-00033614
From: Don Botkin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/29/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Botkin
108 1/2 East Main St.
Heyworth, IL 61745-0456
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30156]]
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
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,
Don T. Botkin
MTC-00033615
From: Holly Falls
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Holly Falls
11301 Riverbank Blvd
Orlando, Fl 32817
January 29, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of
relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services to consumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Holly & David Falls
MTC-00033616
From: Leo Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Please accept the settlement for Microsoft. Let's move on
without further litigation. Our national economy needs to move on.
Accepting the Microsoft settlement will help our national economy
move forward.
MTC-00033617
From: Wade Mountz
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wade Mountz
9 Muirfield Place
Louisville, KY 40222
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Wade Mountz
MTC-00033618
From: JHabicht
To: DOJ
Date: 1/28/02 7:39pm
Subject: anti-trust case
I would like to voice my opinion on the anti-trust case against
Microsoft. I feel this case should be resolved immediately. 30 of
the states were not concerned enough to participate in the lawsuit.
Eleven of the original 20 states involved were satisfied with the
settlement. The remaining states led by the viciously revengeful
attorneys general of Miller and Blumenthal are prolonging this case
beyond reason. These two individuals have some ax to grind against
Microsoft and the court and department of justice should put an end
to this.
People like the bundling approach because it makes the life of
working on a computer and the internet easier. Technology moves too
quickly for any one company to dominate or monopolize.
I hope this lawsuit can be resolved in the next few months and
not drag this out any longer.
John Habicht
11792 Diamond Dr.
Shelby Township, MI 48315
MTC-00033619
From: Elmer Elias
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm
[[Page 30157]]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elmer Elias
5401 bus.83
Harlingen, Tx 78552-3639
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Elmer Elias
MTC-00033620
From: Sandra D. Lucas
To: Renata B. Hesse for John Ashcroft
Date: 1/28/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I would like to make it clear that I, along with millions of
other sensible people, am in full support of an end to the Microsoft
antitrust case. I believe you should support the settlement agreed
upon in this case. The legal system should leave Microsoft alone.
Microsoft is a very ingenious and successful company. Thousands
of people depend on Microsoft for their employment. Microsoft also
exports many products, which is good for our country's economy.
There is no reason for the governmnet to keep going after Microsoft,
especially since a settlement exists that could end this case, The
settlement will give competitors the right to place their software
on Microsoft's systems. What else could they want? Perhaps the
competitors want to exploit the legal system to get at Microsoft.
I believe you are a sensible person with a good instinct for
justice. That is why I have confidence you will settle this case.
Thank you for acknowledging my opinion and request.
Sincerely,
Sandra D. Lucas
MTC-00033621
From: Don LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DONALD LeBLANC
70 COURTSIDE CIRCLE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 78216
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States 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 antitrust dispute. I fully support Microsoft in this
dispute and believe that the settlement that was reached in November
is a fair and reasonable means to end this costly litigation. I do
not believe this lawsuit should have been initiated in the first
place. I also feel that the charge that Microsoft is a monopoly is
false and unrealistic.
This settlement is the best alternative in an imperfect IT
world. Microsoft came to terms with its more controversial policies
and rectified them. Now the company will do such things as disclose
various interfaces of the Windows OS and designing future versions
of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software.
These actions will help its rivals gain a competitive edge that they
did not have before.
As a schoolteacher, I have seen firsthand what Microsoft has
done for the classroom. Please support this settlement and stop
restricting Microsoft. This company has a lot to contribute to our
society.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Donald LeBlanc
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033622
From: Barbara Sanders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Sanders
RR 1, Box 50A-1
Terra Alta, WV 26764
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.
It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending
accompanying it,to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in
the marketplace,rather than the courtroom. And the investors who
propel our economy canfinally breathe a sigh of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not havebroken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoftcan get back into the business of innovating
and creating better productsfor consumers, and not wasting valuable
resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services toconsumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress andtying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats andjudges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. Withthe reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will beencouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barbara A. Sanders
MTC-00033623
From: Barbara I. Ball
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara I. Ball
104 Goddard Place
La Crosse, WI 54603
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a
nuisance toconsumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the
high-tech industry.It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful
spending accompanying it,to be over. Consumers will indeed see
competition in the marketplace,rather than the courtroom.
[[Page 30158]]
And the investors who propel our economy canfinally breathe a sigh
of relief.
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government
should not havebroken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over,
companies like Microsoftcan get back into the business of innovating
and creating better productsfor consumers, and not wasting valuable
resources on litigation.
Competition means creating better goods and offering superior
services toconsumers. With government out of the business of
stifling progress andtying the hands of corporations,
consumers--rather than bureaucrats andjudges--will once
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. Withthe reins off
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will beencouraged to
create new and competitive products and technologies.
Our economies downturn started the sametime as the lawsuit
started. Iremember thinking that with so many people losing their
entire savingsbecause of the lawsuit that the people most hurt by
all of this nonsensewas the little guy with the most to lose.
Yahoo also lost big and the people who invested money was the
factoryworkers, the sales clerks, etc. The government has to get out
of ourbusiness and stick to the job the constitution gave them.
Everything thegovernment touches goes right down the tubes and this
proves it.
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Barbara Inez Ball
MTC-00033624
From: Britt Blaser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A Subversion of US Power.
Who will be remembered as the official(s) who handed Microsoft
the licenseto be the country's sole supplier of reading, writing and
calculating tools. Microsoft is already a larger economy than most
nations, and is growingfaster than any. More importantly, it levies
a tax on every word written andread in our government and our
military.
It is bad policy, and probably illegal, for the government to
depend on asole supplier for any significant resource. Yet the
government's operationsare dependent on the continuing forbearance
of Microsoft in allowing thegovernment's computers to function. Not
only is Microsoft the solecontractor of one of the government's most
pervasive products,MMICROSOFT IS THE SOLE PURVEYOR OF OUR ABILITY TO
GOVERN.Absurd? History is littered with the corpses of governments
that did notrealize the source of their diminution. Just because
Microsoft is not agovernment, is it to be taken any lighter than so
many governments wieldinginferior resources? We took Al Queada
lightly until its real power wasdemonstrated.
If Microsoft's strength is not checked now, how will it be
checked when itis stronger? Do we doubt its strength will grow? It
is tempting (and easier)to dismiss the idea that Microsoft could
wield its power unethically againstits fellow citizens, but is it
responsible to ignore the possibility?Is there a guarantee that
Microsoft's controlling interest cannot fall intothe wrong hands?
When most PCs are running XP V. 3, what is the remedy whenan
unforeseen but persistent registration error causes USDOJ computers
toperform unreliably.
Of course this is absurd today, but when is it no longer absurd?
Is any ofus wise enough to say it can never happen? What set of
unforeseencircumstances would have to occur for this settlement to
become the mostfoolish lapse of governance in our history?
Respectfully submitted,
Lee B. Blaser
MTC-00033625
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Microsoft, in my opinion, has offered a very
fairsettlement after three years of great time and legal expense for
both GOV. and MICROSOFT.
Lets settle this thing and schools will benefit, competitors can
use prop. windows, customers have choices, and everyone (including
Massachusetts) can return to being more productive!!
Cordially,
Don M. Ward, Sr. , Charlotte, N.C.
CC:[email protected]@inetgw
MTC-00033626
From: Brent McKay
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brent McKay
2025 East 30th Street
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 beable 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 Technical Committee
will workout 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 andsoftware 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 havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes.
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle,
and now more than ever, thecountry 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,
Brent McKay
MTC-00033627
From: James Duffy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Duffy
1147 W 162nd Street
Gardena, Ca 90247-4421
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30159]]
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 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,
James Duffy
MTC-00033628
From: Lawrence Greene
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Greene
46 Goodnow Road
Princeton , MA 01541
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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.
The only reason that Sun, Oracle, Apple etc have wanted
Microsoft broken up is because they beat them in the marketplace.
Yet the founds of these companies are the ultimate entrepeneurs and
would be screaming if the Justice Department came after them.
Furthermore,the consumers have benefited tremendously from
Microsoft SW. It is low cost, fully integrated, and makes all of us
more productive. Why do we want to hurt a major exporter to the
world that helps the US balance of payments. The rest of the World
laughs at us when we break up our large companies so that can't
compete against their foreign competitors.
Again the only beneficiary in this suit are the lawyers. Paying
lawyers doesn't add any benefit to our economy nor make us more
productive nation. It is a negative nonvalue added cost.
Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) 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 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,
Lawrence & Marcia Greene
MTC-00033629
From: Jerry Jorgensen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Jorgensen
2505 Las Brisas Dr
Virginia Beach, va 23456
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30160]]
enforcement clause, a 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,
Jerry Jorgensen
MTC-00033630
From: Donald Russell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Russell
28 Brandywine Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45246
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Donald S. Russell
MTC-00033631
From: Donald Russell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Russell
28 Brandywine Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45246
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
andconsumers 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 andsoftware 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 havepaid 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,
Donald S. Russell
MTC-00033632
From: Gary Prae
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Prae
5702 Newberry Point Drive
Flowery Branch, GA 30542
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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
[[Page 30161]]
Justice (DOJ) 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
September11, 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 in novate 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 Technical Committee
will workout 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,
Gary Prae
MTC-00033633
From: Peter McCulloch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
This organization has done irreparable harm to the computational
world through its past (and greatly continuing!) predatory policies.
That such a light settlement has been proposed is a true travesty.
Mydisgust with Microsoft has led me to the linux community and free
software movement, the only places where Microsoft has been unable
to wrap its slithery tentacles. Only a fool would allow them to
continue the course of their present action, as each day they spread
themselves in a new direction, looking to extend their monopoly.
Peter McCulloch
Center for Experimental Music and Intermedia
University of North Texas
MTC-00033634
From: Shana Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shana Clark
8636 Kendall Drive
Plano, tx 75025
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35
million, and after reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to
focus their time and resources on matters of far greaternational
significance: the war against terrorism, including home land
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September11, 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 Technical Committee will workout 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,
Shana Taylor Clark
MTC-00033635
From: Martin Ryszka
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Martin Ryszka
7517 Miller Rd.
Dearborn, MI 48126
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources
on matters of far greaternational significance: the war against
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed 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 beable to make Microsoft programs
compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from the
provision that frees up computer
[[Page 30162]]
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 softwaredevelopers for using products developed by
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause,
a Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with thesettlement.
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 ontheir 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,
Martin S. Ryszka
MTC-00033636
From: Scott Petty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Petty
712 Hickory Knoll Road
Franklin, NC 28734
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 beable 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
softwaredevelopers for using products developed by Microsoft
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a
Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the
next five years, at the company' sexpense, 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,
Scott M. Petty
MTC-00033637
From: Robert Bush
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Bush
1062 Irene St.
Burleson, TX 76028
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bob Bush
MTC-00033638
From: Bambi Bush
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bambi Bush
1062 Irene St.
Burleson, TX 76028
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 30163]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bambi Bush
MTC-00033639
From: Charlene Hechler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlene Hechler
26 Pine Arbor Lane #107
Vero Beach, FL 32062
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Charlene Y. Hechler
MTC-00033640
From: SAMUEL YOUNGMAN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SAMUEL YOUNGMAN
503 EXETER LANE
CAMBRIA, CA 93428
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30164]]
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,
SAMUEL YOUNGMAN
MTC-00033641
From: Ronald Couey
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Couey
1427 Summit Run Circle
West Palm Beach, Fl 33415-4748
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Ronald Couey
MTC-00033642
From: Jeffrey Marty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffrey Marty
2034 Londonderry Dr #304
Madison, WI 53704-4114
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jeffrey C. Marty
MTC-00033643
From: Edward Briggs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Briggs
6735 Lakefront Drive
Magalia, CA 95954
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30165]]
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 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,
Edward W. Briggs
MTC-00033644
From: Edward Evanko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Evanko
1885 Military Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Edward Evanko
MTC-00033645
From: Dorothy Pittsley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Pittsley
11406 E 4th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99206
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
[[Page 30166]]
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,
Dorothy N. Pittsley
MTC-00033646
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Cannot believe what the justice dept. is trying to do to a[[
large exporting business]] this country needs more exports Microsoft
brings billions to this country Also I would start a new business if
I could have Orin Hatch, Novell, Sun micro Systems, Time Warner AOL,
many other competitors & the justice dept. To stifle my
competition I couldn't help but make money
This is real injustice done by GREEDY FAME SEEKING ATTORNEYS
& JANET RENO TRYING TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL GOALS What
Microsoft & BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION HAVE DONE FOR
SCHOOLS ABUSED WOMEN & THOUSANDS OF OTHER GOOD CAUSES, PLAY
GROUND EQUIPMENT FOR SCHOOLS THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OF STATES THAT
WONT SETTLE ARE HURTING SCHOOLS IN THEIR STATES BY NOT ACCEPTING
SOFTWARE, COMPUTERS & ECT. FOR THEIR SCHOOLS THEY WANT CASH TO
USE ON THEIR PET PROJECTS [JUST LIKE TOBACCO MONEY] WHICH WAS FOR
HEALTH CARE BUT USED FOR OTHER PET PROJECTS
Al Jangard oly wa
CC:Microsoft ATR
MTC-00033647
From: John Dunshee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Dunshee
32015 Griffith Dr
Tangent, OR 97389
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
John Dunshee
MTC-00033648
From: David Thrasher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Thrasher
300 Hickory Street SE
Hartselle, AL 35640-2552
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, David L. Thrasher
MTC-00033649
From: Gerald Hillman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Hillman
4218 Village East Circle
San Angelo, TX 77904-6662
January 28, 2002
[[Page 30167]]
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Microsofts
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 Technical Committee
will work out of Microsofts headquarters for the next five years, at
the companys expense, and monitor Microsofts 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,
Gerald W Hillman
MTC-00033650
From: Jonathan H. Bari
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata,
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, attached please find our comments on
the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
Thank you.
Jon
(NOTE NEW OFFICE ADDRESS AS OF 11/21/01)
Jonathan H. Bari
Chairman and CEO
CATAVAULT
100 West Elm Street, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610.941.3388
610.828.9966 (fx)
[email protected]
http://www.catavault.com/company
CNN Headline News call CATAVAULT--``one site that can get
you in everywhere...''
Business Week calls CATAVAULT, ``An Open Sesame for the Whole
Web.''
This message may contain privileged and confidential
information. In the event that this message has reached you in
error, you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance
on it, and we would ask you to notify us immediately by return e-
mail.
CC: Microsoft ATR,
[email protected]@inetgw,dan@cata...
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
COMMENTS OF CATAVAULT ON THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
INTEREST OF THE COMMENTER
Given that Microsoft's Net Passport is the heart of Windows XP,
Microsofts new Operating System that was officially launched on
October 25, 2001, Catavault, a software company addressing online
identification and authentication, unfortunately finds itself in the
cross-hairs of the most powerful software company in the world,
since Microsoft has tied its .Net Passport to Windows XP. Pursuant
to the Tunney Act, this document sets forth Catavault's comments on
the Revised Proposed Final Judgment because we feel that competing
products such as Catavault will still unfortunately be set at a
disadvantage which is not related to price or quality. If the
Revised Proposed Final Judgement is accepted as is, the result will
be a weakening of effective competition in the market, a reduction
in consumer choice and less technological innovation, generally
speaking and specifically to online identification and
authentication.
Catavault has developed, commerically licensed and deployed
patent pending software that is both complementary and competitive
with Microsoft .Net Passport in online identity and authentication
services. Although Microsoft's September 20, 2001 announcement that
a future version of .Net Passport will be federated, \1\ and
thus may be interoperable with rivals' services, we believe
this in no way alters the extremely serious concerns articulated
herein. Moreover, in spite of the Revised Proposed Final Judgement
announced between the United States Department of Justice, nine
states Attorneys General and Microsoft Corporation, Catavault
believes this in no way alters the exremely serious concerns
articulated herein.
As such, Catavault has been encouraged that various states
Attorneys General still have the resolve and resources necessary to
continue the fight in ensuring conduct remedies that are timely,
effective, certain and practical when it comes to curbing
Microsoft's recidivistic behavior.
While these Tunney Act comments were prepared from the heart so
to speak of the entreprenours managing Catavault, Catavault has been
working to promote vigorous competition in computer industry
platforms and gateways with our antitrust counselors from Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius including Mr. Willard K. Tom based in Washington,
DC and Mr. Julian M. Joshua based in Brussels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 See
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CATAVAULT OVERVIEW
Catavault is a pioneer in the online user identification and
authentication space. Catavault's technology powers the ``All
Access Pass to the Internet,'' and it allows users to access
more than 3,500 sites ranging from Amazon.com to ZDNet, a couple of
orders of magnitude more than Microsofts .Net Passport currently
enables access to, without the need to remember all of their
authentication credentials for those sites. Unlike .Net Passport
which is only accessible from a PC, Catavault is accessible from a
PC, PDA, Mobile Phone and Set-top Box, so users can access their
information from any device, at any time and from anywhere. CNN
Headline News has called Catavault--``one site that can
get you in everywhere...''
BusinessWeek has called Catavault, ``An Open Sesame for the
Whole Web.'' Despite these arguably superior features of its
services, Catavault is severely endangered by the steps Microsoft is
taking to ensure that .Net Passport becomes the dominant occupant of
the online identity and authentication space. Accordingly, Catavault
is endangered by the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. The remedial
principle is straightforward enough: the remedy should unfettter a
market from anticompetitive conduct, . . . terminate the illegal
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory
violation and ensure that there
[[Page 30168]]
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the
future.\2\ However, in spite of the overwhelming en banc victory on
liability, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement does little to
ensure that conduct remedies are timely, effective, certain and
practical in curbing Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS & MICROSOFT S HAILSTORM STRATEGY
Microsoft fully recognizes that, because of the network
characteristics of the industry, only subtle uses of its monopoly
position are necessary in order to gain an unwarranted, but
insuperable dominance in this field. Indeed, its choice of
``HailStorm'' as a metaphor speaks volumes. As you may
know, with each updraft in the natural weather-related occurrence of
a hail storn, hail stones get larger as more water molecules attach
to the crystalline structures of the hail stones. Similarly,
Microsoft makes its monopoly position more impregnable with every
adjacent space it dominates. Each layer creates another multiple-
level entry problem for potential competitors, as described in the
United States Department of Justice's 1984 Merger Guidelines to
which the United States Federal agencies still refer in non-
horizontal matters. Figure 1 is a visual representation of the
troubling processes that Catavault see at work with respect to a
monopolist bundling its own applications to its dominant Operating
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States v. Microsoft Corp., slip op. at
99-100, No. 00-5212 (DC Cir. June 28,2001), quoting Ford
Motor Corp v. United States, 405 U.S. 562,577 (1972); United States
v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250 (1068).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reported in The Wall Street Journal on September 20,2001,
Microsoft changed the name of its HailStorm initiative to
``.Net My Services''--possibly because they realized
that its very name, HailStorm, has strong whiffs of antitrust
violations.
One can argue that network effects require a lock-in mechanism.
However, teh traditional lock-in mechanism is access to complements.
Some of the services offered by Catavault and .Net Passport require
cooperation from third party Internet site(s). If .Net Passport has
a much larger number of users, gained through the use of its
operating system monopoly, then why would the sites would want to
work with Catavault? If the sites cease to work with Catavault, then
why would users find Catavault attractive? These questions and their
answers are paramount to understanding how market signaling and
network effects work towards teh monopolists advantages when it ties
its own applications to its dominant Operating System.
NETSCAPE--FRUITS OF MICROSOFT S STATUTORY VIOLATIONS
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft s actions have
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the
computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq,
Intel and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its
prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that
insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition
against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft s past success
in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment
in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to
threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations
that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason
that they do no coincide with Microsoft s self-interest.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Finding of Fact, 412th
and final paragraph, November 5, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, When Microsoft destroyed Netscape as a potential
rival platform, it did more than achieve dominance in browsers. It
also prevented rival applications developers from playing Microsoft
off against Netscape in the battle to ensure the survival of their
applications programs and services. If Netscape and/or other
browser/middleware platform software had as a serious competitor to
Microsoft, competitive pressures would have forced one or more
platforms to carry Catavault, because doing so would have provided a
competitive advantage. The platform itself would have become more
attractive if, through accessing Catavault, users were freed from
cumbersome authentication procedures on a much larger number of
sites. That competitive pressure is now gone. Thus, Catavault's
current predicament flows directly from Microsoft's earlier unlawful
acts against Netscape.
MARKET EXPECTATIONS STIFLE INNOVATION AND COMPETITION
Moreover, the very public humbling of an 85 percent market share
player like Netscape in inself creates market expectations that
where Microsoft announces an intention to dominate a strategic
space, it will succeed in doing so. .Net Passport occupies a
strategic space as the on-ramp to the Internet as illustrated in
Figure 2, and Microsoft has been quite public about that fact as has
been reported in articles in The Industry Standard.\4\ Consequently,
merchants, investors and other marketplace participants become
highly resistant to dealing with Microsoft's competitors in such
spaces. For example, Benjamin D. Black, a principal of the Rosewood
Venture Group, a U.S. venture capital firm in San Francisco,
California has stated, ``I still won't invest in companies that
are directly in front of Microsoft's development path.''\5\ And
Stewart Alsop, a general partnet of New Enterprise Associates, a
Silicon Valley venture capital firm in the U.S., has been quoted as
saying, ``The most common question for potential investors is:
``What about Windows XP?'' You can still compete but if
Microsoft bundles it in Windows it makes it much more difficult for
any kind of innovation that is in Microsoft's path.\6\ Thus, in this
sense, too, Microsoft's earlier unlawful acts against Netscape
directly cuts Catavault off from access to important complements.
To that end, one could argure that the competition is ultimately
not for the end-user, but for the online service providers who
actually pay for online identity and authentication services.
Signing up 200 million Hotmail accounts gives Microsoft a huge
critical mass of users, but what does it do to get third party sites
to work with .Net Passport? To answer this effectively, one must
understand that having so many users signals to the marketplace that
Microsoft will dominate online identity and authentication services.
Moreover, these third party businesses are motivated to work with
Microsoft based on the marketing support that Microsoft can provide
them--thus creating value propositions from Microsoft s
monopoly position. If third party businesses believe that Microsoft
will also succeed in using its Operating System monopoly to push
Catavault and/or others aside in terms of subscribers or utlities,
then third party firms will not have an incentive to work with
Catavault. As former United States Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Carl Shapiro has described in his writings, expectations play a very
large role in network markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.thestandard.com/article/
0,1902,27686,00.html.
\5\ The New York Times, September 7, 2001, Competitors See
a Giant That is Now Largely Unfettered, by Michael Brick.
\6\ The New York Times, September 7, 2001, Pendulum Swings
to Microsoft, But the Degree Remains Unclear, by Steve Lohr.
\7\ Speech by Carl Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice.
American Law Institute and American Bar Association,
``Antitrust/Intellectual Property Claims in High Technology
Markets,'' San Francisco, California, January 25, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAKING .NET PASSPORT THE DE FACTO IDENTITY SERVICE IN WINDOWS XP
Microsoft has taken a number of steps to ensure, and to make
consumers believe, that having a .Net Passport account is necessary
in order to access features of Windows XP and/or other Microsoft
goods and services. Indeed, the press, encouraged by Microsoft, has
come to the conclusion that Microsoft .Net Passport ``will be
the exclusive identity service on teh enw Windows XP operating
system. Any XP user who wishes to access key services such as
Windows Messenger (for Instant Messaging) will have to register for
a Passport.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: http://www.thestandard.com/article/
0,1902,27685,00.html, attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft has not achieved its claimed 2000 million .Net
Passport subscribers by offering a superior service. (Competitive
market research indicates that .Net Passport is currently accepted
by only about 35-70 sites, most of which are owned by
Microsoft, have received substantial Microsoft investment or
partnered with Microsoft in some sort of business arrangement.)
Instead, it has done so by these kinds of suggestions of
inevitability and by automatically opening .Net Passport accounts
for all Hotmail and MSN users, and even hinting at future
integration and potential incompatibilities. Thus, in published
reports regarding .Net Passport 2.0, it is stated, ``...with
this release, Hotmail will move to the Passport code base for easier
integration.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Source: http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/
Index.cfm?ArticleID=22174, attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catavault experienced this directly in early September 2001 when
a Catavault employee tried to access the latest release candidate of
XP. First, he learned that one could not get the latest preview of
XP online without a .Net
[[Page 30169]]
Passport account.\10\ Then, after downloading that version of XP and
rebooting, he got a blank desktop, but in the system tray in the
bottom right, a message popped up that said: ``Add your .NET
Passport to Windows XP! You've just connected to the Internet. You
need a Passport to use Windows XP Internet communications features
(such as instant messaging, voice chat, and video), and to access
.NET-enabled services on the Internet. Click here to set up your
Passport now.''
When he clicked, it went to the .NET Passport Wizard to let him
sign up for Passport. Thus, whether or not there are actual
incompatibilities, Microsoft has been representing to users that
they must sign up for .Net Passport in order to access key XP
features or other Microsoft services. In a network business, that
may be all Microsoft needs to maintain and extend its dominance to
this space as well. These network characteristics undoubtedly
underlie some of the ``vaporware'' aspects of Microsoft's
dramatic announcements but slow rollout. We have already mentioned
how small the number of third party sites accepting .Net Passport
is. In the same vein, ZDNet has reported that American Express has
yet to sign a contract with Microsoft for HailStorm services. This
despite the fact that Microsoft touted American Express as a partner
at the very announcement of the HailStorm initiative, by featuring
American Express Chief Information Officer in that announcement.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/preview/
systemreq.asp.
\11\ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/
0,4586,5096385,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED CONDUCT REMEDIES TO CURB ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
If there is no efficiency justification for Microsoft's tactics
such as bundling and/or market signaling, they may be acts of
monopolization in themselves. But regardless of whether they are or
not, the current situation flows directly from Microsoft's earlier
unlawful acts against Netscape. While one can never know with
certainty exactly what that but-for world would have been had
Netscape survived, it was reasonably certain that, for some
significant period of time, there would have been a competitive
struggle between Microsoft and Netscape as alternative nuclei around
which other providers of applications and services would coalesce.
Both would seek to commoditize the other's space. If Netscape gained
the upper hand, multiple operating systems would become available to
computer users. If Microsoft gained the upper hand, multiple
browsers would become available. Consequently, any remedy for those
earlier acts needs to include some kind of mandated intra-system
competition to take the place of the competition that would have
existed between the two systems to add attractive applications
through a Ballot Screen with choices for online identity and
authentication services such as Catavault.
We have given a great deal of thought to what order language
would be needed to implement the concept of a Ballot Screen.
Following is the rationale and the result can be found in Figure 3
with the language marked as to revisions. It uses Microsoft's
inclusion of middleware products in its operating system software as
the benchmark for what types of products should be included, with
the slight modification that it remedies the continuing effects of
past inclusions as well as remedying the effects of future
inclusions. As you will see, there is a provision for approval by
some entity, corresponding to Commission approval in the AOL Time
Warner order, in order to ensure that the competing products are
serious competitors to Microsoft. In the case of online identity and
authentication, the seriousness of the competition can be measured
by the number of sites, users, and devices accessed by the
competitor. These metrics could be written into the order if
desired, but in any event the existence of available metrics would
ensure that the entity charged with approval would have an objective
way of exercising that discretion. As you will also see, when we
reviewed Judge Jackson's order, we concluded that online identity
and authentication service software would fit comfortably into the
definition of ``middleware,'' but for the avoidance of
doubt, we included it specifically in the list of examples. In
addition to offering services via communications interfaces as now
occurs, it is entirely possible that in the future, programmers of
sites or of programs used to build sites will write software built
upon a Catavault platform. We have also given further thought to the
Department of Justice's observation that a possible standard for
relief is that it should be aimed at opening the operating system
market to competition. After reflection, we believe that our
proposed Ballot Screen relief does in fact further that goal, but
that such a standard is nonetheless wrong, in spite of that standard
appearing in the Department of Justice's September 6, 2001 press
release.
The relief we propose does further the goal of operating system
competition, because allowing Microsoft to use its operating system
monopoly to obtain a dominant position in the authentication gateway
to the Internet will mean the creation of yet another applications
barrier to entry, because it will be extremely difficult to police
the ways in which Passport could be used to favor Windows if a
credible threat to Windows arose.
There is, however, a more fundamental issue: the proper standard
must be to restore the competitive conditions that would have
existed but for the illegal conduct. It is, of course, too late to
revive Netscape as a credible threat to Microsoft's operating system
monopoly. One approach might be, as the Department of Justice once
proposed, to find in Microsoft's applications
software--particularly its dominant Office suite--a
sufficiently dangerous competitive threat to the operating system
monopoly. As in the competition between Microsoft and Netscape in
the but-for world, the point of that remedy was not to assure
ultimate, long-term competition in operating systems. The operating
system company might win the competitive struggle, and ultimately
maintain its monopoly position through lawful means. The point of
the remedy was the competitive struggle itself. That remedy was
imperfect, as are all the alternatives. But for better or worse, it
is now off the table.
Whatever replaces it, the goal should not be to assure ultimate,
long-term competition in operating systems. The but-for world did
not do so. Microsoft might well have won the competitive struggle,
and maintained its monopoly. The point of the Netscape threat to the
operating system monopoly was that Microsoft had to compete with
better products and prices, and in the meantime the rest of the
computer industry would be vigorously competitive and innovative,
and might nurture the next threat to the surviving monopolist. It is
the strangling of that dynamic from which the market must be
unfettered, and it is Microsoft's freedom from that dynamic that
constitutes the ``fruits of its statutory violation.'' At
this point in the evolution of the computer industry, after
Microsoft's misconduct, it might well be a hopeless task to restore
competition in operating systems.
It is not too late, however, to restore the competitive dynamic
that ensured that, while Microsoft battles its chief rivals in the
most strategic battleground at any given time, innovators in the
next strategic space could play one against the other in order to
survive. At the moment, the inter-system competition that Netscape
represented is gone, and the Department of Justice is no longer
seeking to have competition from Microsoft Office take its place.
Thus, the temporary stopgap by which the next strategic space can
develop must be intra-system competition, or ``must-
carry.'' That will revive some of the competitive dynamic that
Microsoft has cut off, and allow competition to flourish
in--and on the other side of--those gateways. Ergo, just
as Microsoft agreed to change its digital imaging features to give
users easier access to digital imaging software from a number of
providers such as Kodak, not just those affiliated with Microsoft,
so there needs to be a requirement that Microsoft incorporate
Catavault (and other online identity and authentication services
that may arise) into XP as a complementary and competitive service.
Thus, doing some kind of a ``Ballot Screen'' for consumers
to select which online identity and authentication service they
would like may be as close as one can get to the competitive
landscape that would have existed but for Microsoft's already
adjudicated unlawful conduct.
In addition, of course, one would need to prohibit Microsoft
from introducing incompatibilities, to forbid Microsoft from making
use of .Net Passport as a prerequisite to use other Microsoft goods
and services, and so forth. Otherwise, the need to sign up with .Net
Passport to get the XP preview is likely to continue to be the
typical pattern for accessing anything that Microsoft can control or
influence.
MICROSOFT's FEDERATED ANNOUNCEMENT & INTERNET TRUST NETWORK -ITS
EFFECTS AND RELATION TO FEAR, UNCERTAINTY & DOUBT
A ``Ballot Screen'' remedy would be far superior to
waiting to see how Microsoft's latest federated announcement plays
out. As the Department of Justice well knows, a ``fear,
uncertainty and doubt'' strategy relies
[[Page 30170]]
heavily on the passage of time and the uncertainty of the future.
(This is undoubtedly why Microsoft has been making every effort to
delay judicial and legislative proceedings in the United States.) As
of January 28, 2002, Catavault has neither been invited to any
Microsoft developers conference yet, nor has it learned of any
developers conference yet, albeit Catavault has informed Microsoft
about its potential willingness to participate in the conference.
Additionally, XP has already been launched with an aggressive
marketing campaign and with .Net Passport as the exclusive online
identity and authentication service. .Net Passport will have a huge
user base that will undoubtedly get larger between now and the time
that any Microsoft federation conference or any competitive and/or
complementary solution such as the Liberty Alliance initiated by Sun
Microsystems produces any tangible results in the marketplace. The
agenda of the federated conference and other like it such as the
Liberty Alliance may be to develop standards for implementation of
online user identification and authentication services, and in the
case of Microsoft's Internet Trust Network, built upon a technology
platform of Microsoft's choosing, regardless of consumer
preferences. Following that developers conference, there may be a
long period of back-and-forth over technical standards. Next may
come a period in which Microsoft sows uncertainty about the extent
to which other services are fully interoperable, perhaps because of
peculiarities in Microsoft's implementation of the common standard.
During all that time, .Net Passport will become more and more
entrenched, regardless of consumers preferences as to the features
and scope of competing online user identification and authentication
services. Industry pundits used to subscribe to the notion that
first mover advantage was the most important mission of many new
technology ventures. However, based on present market conditions, we
argue that it has nothing to do with first mover advantage anymore;
rather it has everything to do with the concept of last man
standing. Accordingly with over US $36 billion in cash reserves on
hand, Microsoft is well positioned to be the last man standing in
many industries including online identity and authentication.
PROBLEMS WITH THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGEMENT
While there are many troubling issues with the Revised Proposed
Final Judgement, two of the more salient problems for the online
identity and authentication sector involve the following terms and
provisions:
� OEMs--The fact is that Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) are a sub-optimal source to serve as an
adequate check and balance on Microsoft's anti-competitive actions.
For example, the provisions that allow OEMs to have greater freedom
to select which software to use and not to use do absolutely nothing
to protect consumer choice and technological innovation.
Thus, providing the OEMs greater freedom as a conduct remedy
against Microsoft is meaningless today given consolidation in the PC
industry, slumping PC sales, depressed PC margins, and the fact that
the OEMs do not want to bite the hand that feeds
them--Microsoft.
Moreover, the OEMs know very well that small companies such as
Catavault cannot afford to compete against Microsoft, both in terms
of operations and marketing. Case in point, Windows XP launched on
time because Microsoft lobbied that XP would help revive slumping PC
sales, and Microsoft is spending approximately US $250 million just
on marketing for XP. As such, OEMs do not necessarily want to bet on
smaller players which find themselves in the cross-hairs of
Microsoft--thus consumer choice and technological innovation
are still harmed.
AUTHENTICATION LOOPHOLE--The following provision from the
proposed settlement seems to be the veritable loophole large enough
to drive a truck through, particularly affecting Catavault and other
online identity and authentication services.
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement
criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to
any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a
governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
\12\ Identification and authentication is singled out for
a loophole to free Microsofts. Net Passport from scrutiny and permit
Microsoft to bind a universal identification and authentication
service utility to its monopoly operating system without scrutiny
under the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. By permitting Microsoft
to withhold key parts of encryption, digital rights management,
authentication, and other security protocols, the Revised Proposed
Final Judgement effectively clears the way for the desktop
monopolist to the Web-services monopolist in a distributed computing
environment. The Revised Proposed Final Judgement could hardly try
to place a clearer stamp of approval on an expansion of the scope of
an illegally maintained monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement agreed to by the United
States Department of Justice, the Attorneys General of nine states
and Microsoft Corporation does not attain its goals of curbing
Microsoft s recidivistic behavior in maintaining and extending its
operating system monopoly into Web-services such as online
identification and authentication, which Microsoft has bet will be
the next gateway to the Internet. Specifically, the Revised Proposed
Final Judgement does not provide adequate incentives across
constituent bodies and penalties for Microsoft to ensure that the
Revised Proposed Final Judgement goals are attained. Moreover, the
lenient conduct remedies imposed on Microsoft are essentially a slap
on the wrist for its illegal conduct and anti-competitive practices.
Unfortunately, technological innovation and consumer choice will
continue to be harmed, and this will be exacerbated in challenging
economic conditions if the Revised Proposed Final Judgement is
accepted as is. As such, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement needs
to be revised significantly if it is to have any real impact in the
marketplace in curbing Microsoft s recidivistic behavior.
Specifically, as it pertains to the heart of Windows XP and
Microsoft s goal of dominating online identification and
authentication with .Net Passport, we believe quite passionately
that implementing a Ballot Screen for users to choose which
identification and authentication service that they would like would
go a long way to providing a conduct remedy that was more timely,
effective and certain.
Figure 1
The world of operating systems becomes more homogenous over
time. Today something like 85 percent of the computers on the planet
run the same operating system [Microsoft's]. There is sort of a
positive feedback cycle here. If you get more applications, it gets
more popular, if it gets more popular, it gets more applications.
--Bill Gates keynote address, Conference on Internet and Society
at Harvard in May 1996; World War 3.0 by Ken Auletta.
On June 28, 2001, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
unanimously held that Microsoft engaged in unlawful monopolization.
Notwithstanding Judge Jackson s ruling and the appellate ruling,
Microsoft prominently announced its major corporate initiative
called HailStorm in March 2001; the very choice of HailStorm as a
name serves as a metaphor for a positive feedback cycle in Bill
Gates opinion or network effects and increasing returns in an
antitrust perspective.
The heart of HailStorm is based on .Net Passport, Microsoft s
proprietary online identification and authentication service. This
market signaling transcends into Microsoft's strategy and tactics to
gain market advantage in new sectors using .Net Passport. .Net
Passport is the exclusive online identification and authentication
service on Windows XP. Accordingly, .Net Passport will be the de
facto online identification and authentication service which will
limit consumer choice and undermine innovation. As reported in The
Wall Street Journal on September 20, 2001, Microsoft changed the
name of HailStorm to ``.Net My Services''--possibly
because they realize that its very name--HailStorm--has
strong whiffs of antitrust violations.
Note: In its natural weather-related occurrence, hail stones are
large frozen raindrops produced by intense thunderstorms. As the
frozen drops fall, liquid water freezes onto them forming ice
pellets that continue to grow as more and more droplets accumulate.
Upon reaching the bottom of the cloud [symbolic for the Internet],
some of the ice pellets are carried by the updraft back up to the
top of the cloud. As the ice pellets once again fall through the
cloud, another layer of ice is
[[Page 30171]]
added and the hail stones grow even larger. Typically the stronger
the updraft, the more times hail stones repeat this cycle and
consequently, the larger the hail stones grow. Once the hail stones
become too heavy to be supported by the updraft, they fall out of
the cloud toward the surface. The hail stones reach the ground as
ice since they are not in the warm air below the thunderstorm long
enough to melt before reaching the ground.
And as one knows, you should take cover from a hail storm...
Figure 2
Microsoft's .Net Passport online identification &
authentication technology controls the gateway to all applications
in Windows XP Windows XP
It's our goal to have virtually everybody who uses the Internet
to have one of these Passport connections--Bill Gates Source:
The Industry Standard--July 3, 2001 http://www.thestandard.com/
article/0,1902,27685,00.html
While digital photography, instant messaging and streaming media
all are very important issues to constituents such as Kodak, AOL
Time Warner and Real Networks respectively, the backbone to
Microsoft s HailStorm (renamed .Net My Services) initiative and full
utilization of Windows XP is the Microsoft .Net Passport
identification and authentication service. Microsoft has stated that
.Net Passport will be the exclusive Internet identity service on
Windows XP, and Passport will be required to utilize some or all of
the features noted above.
Thus, even if competition in those areas is assured, Microsoft
will still hold the real keys to access and conceivably will be able
to use its .Net Passport monopoly to direct traffic away from
competing digital photography, instant messaging and streaming media
applications.
Instant Messaging
Digital Imaging Streaming Media
Microsoft s .Net Passport
Identification & Authentication
Technology
Microsoft Office XP
Internet Explorer
Figure 3 Proposed Order (Marked with changes) 3g. Restriction on
BindingIncluding Middleware Products toin Operating System Products.
Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six
or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind
include any Middleware Product toin a Windows Operating System
unless:
i. that Operating System also includes at least two (2)
comparable Middleware Products offered by non-affiliated firms
approved by the [Antitrust Division] [Department of Justice] [Court]
[Trustee] or Microsoft demonstrates to the satisfaction of
[----------] that fewer than two such
products exist, in which case Microsoft shall include all that
exist. The option of using such non-affiliated products shall be
displayed to the user on terms no less favorable than those accorded
to the Microsoft products.
ii. Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical version of that
Operating System Product in which all means of End-User Access to
thatthose Middleware Products can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as
part of standard OEM pre-installation kits and (b) by end users
using add-remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot
process and from the Windows desktop.; and
iii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Microsoft
Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is
preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows
is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise
applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of
binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately
from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable
version of Windows.
3g. Middleware Products Included in Previously Distributed
Operating System Products. If Microsoft has, in any Operating System
Product distributed less than six months after the effective date of
this Final Judgment, included any Middleware Product in a Windows
Operating System, it shall within six months after the effective
date of this Final Judgment:
i. release a version of its most recent Operating System that
includes at least two (2) comparable Middleware Products offered by
non-affiliated firms approved by the [Antitrust Division]
[Department of Justice] [Court] [Trustee], unless Microsoft
demonstrates to the satisfaction of
[----------] that fewer than two such
products exist, in which case Microsoft shall include all that
exist. The option of using such non-affiliated products shall be
displayed to the user on terms no less favorable than those accorded
to the Microsoft products.
ii. offer an otherwise identical version of that Operating
System Product in which all means of End-User Access to those
Middleware Products can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as part of
standard OEM preinstallation kits and (b) by end users using add-
remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot process and
from the Windows desktop.
7q. 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, including such Operating Systems and
database management systems on an Internet site) 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, online identity and authentication service
software, 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.
r. Middleware Product means
i. Internet browsers, e-mail client software, multimedia viewing
software, instant messaging software, online identity and
authentication service software, and voice recognition software, or
ii. software distributed by Microsoft that �
(1) is, or has in the applicable preceding year been,
distributed separately from an Operating System Product in the
retail channel or through Internet access providers, Internet
content providers, ISVs or OEMs, and (2) provides functionality
similar to that provided by Middleware offered by a competitor to
Microsoft.
MTC-00033651
From: Thomas Tully
Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
file:///Lff7371 Remedy/Paralegals/TULLY.HTM
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
To Whom It May Concern:
I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill
Gates' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this company or
protect against future gauging.
As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of
its practices. Their concessions of handing over some operating
systems code and offering manufacturers some sovereignty over Media
Player amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrists for a
multi-billion dollar company.
I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller,
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the
other eight state attorneys general see the many loopholes and
problems with enforcement that does little to affect change in the
computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three
companies may not be the proper response, but neither is this. Your
decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is a
mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Tully
318 51st Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50312
CC: Iowa Attorney General
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click
Here
MTC-00033652
From: Bob Grasmick
[[Page 30172]]
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob Grasmick
3239 Monte Vista
Torrington, Wy 82240
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Bob Grasmick
MTC-00033653
From: Leo Caissie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leo Caissie
524 Main Street
Hudson, MA 01749-2909
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Leo A.Caissie
MTC-00033654
From: ROBERT PIOLI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT PIOLI
102 LYNN AVE
MARIETTA, OH 45750
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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.
[[Page 30173]]
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 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,
ROBERT L. PIOLI
MTC-00033655
From: wendell starr
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To: Renatta B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Washington, DC
Dear Sir,
The antitrust case against Microsoft was unfortunate. But it
shows that Microsoft is willing to work with its competitors to
create an equal playing field. Future mishaps are unlikely to occur
with a Three-Person Technical Committee. Additionally, I understand
that Microsoft will share code with its competitors which will allow
them to place their own programs on the operating system.
As a recent retiree, I know that the job market is extremely
volatile, and competition tends to create jobs. However, this
settlement will allow Microsoft to refocus its direction in business
and new technology with a renewal of the vigor which it has well
demonstrated which will also create new jobs.
With the information technology industry in a slump, this
settlement provides a dose of medicine to a slowing economy; which
should help revitalize other IT companies across the country.
Best regards
Wendell T. Starr
Associate Editor of Transactions of the IEEE (my hobby)
850 Webster St., Apt. 507
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MTC-00033656
From: Todd Christensen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
Dear Ms. Heese:
I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice,
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more
services and products to choose from.
As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S.
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
Respectfully,
Todd Christensen
500 Chamber Way
Chehalis, WA 98532-2200
CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy
MTC-00033657
From: Sharyn Robbins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharyn Robbins
9123 219th PL NE
Redmond, WA 98053-2239
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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, although I, as well as most of my friends, was against
this lawsuit from the start. 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,
Sharyn Robbins
MTC-00033658
From: Oscar Garcia
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Oscar Garcia
1212 Susan Lane Apt. 168
Fort Worth, TX 76120
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S.
[[Page 30174]]
v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Oscar Garcia
MTC-00033659
From: Jon H. Clayton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon H. Clayton
174 Woodland Ct.
Wetumpka, AL 36093-2211
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Jon H. Clayton
MTC-00033660
From: Robert Lanzner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lanzner
6471 West 83rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90045-2885
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30175]]
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,
Robert A. Lanzner
MTC-00033661
From: Glen Johnston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glen Johnston
25 Buttercup Loop
Belton, TX 76513
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Glen E. Johnston
MTC-00033662
From: Dewey Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dewey Howard
915 Flat Rock Rd
Sparta, TN 38583
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Dewey Howard
MTC-00033663
From: James Feighny
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Feighny
252 Wyanoke Dr
San Antonio, TX 78209
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30176]]
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 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,
James Feighny
MTC-00033664
From: Richard Travis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Travis
5449 Vanderbilt Road
Old Hickory, TN 37138-1131
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Richard E. Travis
MTC-00033665
From: Jerry Rea
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Rea
P. O. Box 934
New Smyrna Beach, , FL 32170-0934
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30177]]
the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Jerry and Norma Rea
MTC-00033666
From: F. David Marschka
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
F. David Marschka
1862 Amity Drive
Lancaster, PA 17601-6234
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
F. David Marschka
MTC-00033667
From: george adams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
george adams
707 market st
cheraw, sc 29520
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
George E. Adams
MTC-00033668
From: Glenn Dobson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn Dobson
2203 Palmersville Hwy-89
Dresden, TN 38225
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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
[[Page 30178]]
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 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,
Glenn Dobson
MTC-00033669
From: Judith Huston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judith Huston
34800 Cadiz-Piedmont Rd.
Cadiz, OH 43907
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Judith L. Huston
MTC-00033670
From: Karen Shirey
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
Dear Department of Justice:
I support Microsoft their right of freedom to innovate. I have
used computers and different programs since 1985 and have always
preferred Microsoft systems and products. Had any of the other
companies that are now trying to sue Microsoft produced better
programs, they would have been ahead of Microsoft due to public
demand. Using politics and trying to force a company out of business
due to greed and jealousy is NOT going to make their product any
better, nor make anyone choose it over Microsoft.
Sincerely,
Karen Shirey
1430 Grandview
Hanover, PA 17331-9542
MTC-00033671
From: Kristin Hopkins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kristin Hopkins
4 Cormorant Circle
Durham, NH 03824
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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
[[Page 30179]]
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,
Kristin E. Hopkins
MTC-00033672
From: Mark Moghab
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Moghab
56 New York Ave
Congers, NY 10920
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Mark Moghab
MTC-00033673
From: Paul Thutt
To: US DOJ
Date: 1/27/02 6:00pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft AntiTrust case
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Require that Microsoft publish its file formats prior to the
release of any upgrades to their product or the release of any new
product. This will protect the consumer without hindering
Microsoft's innovation or its pursuit of new markets. While I am
certainly no fan of Microsoft and its business practices, breaking
them up is not a solution. Require that there be no ``active
content'' in the file format. (``Active Content'' is
software embedded in the document file.) This would have two
beneficial effects.
1. Elimination of insertion of computer viruses into another
system via a document file.
2. No way for Microsoft to force usage of their software in
order to make use of the document.
With the file formats published, competing products will be able
to read and write the consumer's data files. The primary reason that
Microsoft is in a monopoly position is because business and
individuals must be able to share documents. Most businesses use
Microsoft Office products and thus the document is in Microsoft's
proprietary file format. Other businesses and individuals must
purchase the Microsoft product in order to be able to work as a
team.
Documents are the property of the business and individuals that
produced them, and not of the manufacturer of the software used to
save the document in a file. Empower the consumer by publishing the
file formats. Perhaps, the IEEE standards for computer interfaces,
floating point format, and networking protocols are good models.
With competitor's products able to read, modify and write the shared
files, individual preference for features and price will determine
what products are purchased. The consumer benefits from the choice.
Analogies are:
� In automobiles, fuels are standard. Gearshift
patterns are standard. Pedal placement is standard.
� In computers, the PCI bus is a published standard
created by Intel but released to the public and many vendors produce
chip sets and interface cards to that standard.
� In networking, 802.11b is a published standard for
wireless networking. There are many vendors for wireless networking
equipment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Paul M. Thutt
22495 NW Phillips Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
[email protected]
MTC-00033674
From: Ralph Askam
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Askam
4120 Nobhill Dr.
Muskegon, Mi 49441
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 Technical Committee
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years,
at the company's expense, and monitor
[[Page 30180]]
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,
Ralph F. Askam M. D.
MTC-00033675
From: Robert Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Brown
1062 U. S. route 2
Rumford, ME 04276
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
R. C. Brown
MTC-00033677
From: Stephen Scavott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Scavott
158 Dovecote Lane
Central Islip, ny 11722
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
I would like to express my support for the revised proposed
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. 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 (DOJ) 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 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,
Stephen M. Scavott
MTC-00033678
From: Casey Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To the Honorable Department of Justice--
It is as a student, a technician, and an end-user that I wish to
add my comments as per the Tunney Act concerning the settlement
proposed by the corporation in question, Microsoft.
Before I begin individually laying out my reasons for my views,
I must first denounce the proposed settlement as a mockery of
justice, the institution of the courts, the welfare of the consumer,
and the sensibility of the media and the general public. We speak of
punishment of criminals yet we are prepared to enact a double
standards of rewards for crimes of business.
The practice of the Microsoft Corporation has been established
as a violation of antitrust laws. From the packaging of the Internet
Explorer web browser with its operating system, fully integrate it
with the
[[Page 30181]]
operating system of Windows to its current methods of furthering the
hold on the software industry with Microsoft Office, Windows Media
Player, built-in firewall for XP, .NET system, and the coupling of
Microsoft Network with Windows XP, or its suit over the Windows
names. This case began in 1995 and now in 2002 we are willing to
settle with a turn of our backs.
I could list piece-by-piece what I view as theft by this Giant.
I could easily attempt to make my case that Microsoft has not
produced, in general, a product solely of its own without building
it or modeling it from a product of another company. Whether it is
the windowing system concept (Macintosh), DOS (Caldera),Start Menu
(Apple), Terminal Services (Symantec's pcAnywhere / AT&T Virtual
Network Computing), firewall and multiple logins (unix, Linux
iptables/ipchains). I could sit and justify the vantage that the
richest man in the United States built his fortune upon the backs of
stolen ideas. A criminal never brought to trial.
As a student, I am dishearten to see the movements in the
university systems to be Microsoft-centric. Database classes are
taught with Access, programs are to be written with Visual Basic/
C++/J++, web design is taught via Frontpage, and the operating
system of choice for labs is Microsoft Windows. At what cost? If you
are to look at the per-seat licensing of Microsoft we are spending
fortunes on software at the cost of a broad education. We learn by
the bloated non-standards and hope that we can push in the real
world. We fail to learn systems outside the deal.
As a technician for an internet service provider, I am force to
witness first hand the limiting force of a monopoly. When a call
comes in the first generalized question that comes to the client is,
``What version of Windows are you running?'', followed by
``What version of Internet Explorer are you running?''.
Common issues are virii, tcp/ip stack failures, win modem
initialization strings, corrupt executables of Windows components.
Because Internet Explorer is intergrated with the Windows operating
system, the user interface is slower, if Internet Explorer blows up
you lose the stability of your system, and users are unable to
regress to a previous version or remove the faulty component.
Security is negligible, the mail system is a petri dish for virii,
and the networking leaves much to be desired. On a day-to-day basis,
I have to deal with problems of Windows ``forgetting''
settings and devices or perpetuating unneeded data in the way of
networking addresses. Hardware compatibility is greatly reduced as
it as modems are software based (``winmodems''). Internet
access setup is hindered by the persistence of MSN (The Microsoft
Network) in terms of web browsing, messaging, dial-up networking,
and communications compatibility.
As an end-user, I cannot help but to feel that I have been
violated. I used in-house networking to share information between my
laptop, my sister's computer, and my home system. My laptop is an
Apple Powerbook running Mac OS X, my desktop is Redhat Linux 7.2,
and my sister's machine is Windows 2000 Professional. I have had to
run numerous security updates on Windows 2000 and its predecessor
Windows 98. XP, which I had test ran has holes in security large
enough to sail the US Navy through. Non-Microsoft programs are
``crash-proned'' by the operating system. I cannot help to
feel that as a consumer I the Warranty of Mercantibility failed to
apply toMicrosoft products. I deal with file sharing compatibilities
with SMB RPC calls. I feal cheated. The cost is high-way robbery. In
an industry where compatibility is a necessity, Microsoft continues
to violate standards in security, networking, programming. Its
movement to control the wealth of the industry has damaged the
industry and the economy of the United States of America. We cannot
pretend that keeping the ingrediants in one pantry allows every one
to taste the pie. Unemployment, job cuts, and damages are left in
the wake of postponed action.
The proposed settlement is not a punitive settlement, but an
extension in guise that fails to be in the best interests of
justice, consumers, and the general populace. The
``donation'' of monopoly software to an area where the
monopoly is not in existence is the furtherment of the monopoly. It
is the allowing of Park Place and Boardwalk with hotels to reap
Community Chest.
On the other hand, I agree with the proposed settlement of
Redhat. Let Microsoft purchase the equipment, let another software
vendor provide the software. Software that is not terms limited,
user agreement stipulated, bug-ridden, security questionable, and
compatibility hell. I would further liketo propose the removable of
Internet Explorer and Media Player from current and future versions
of the Windows OS along with the shutdown of the Microsoft Network.
Do not allow one trust for another another. Anything short of this
would be unfair when you look at the settlement that prevent
AT&T from developing Unix and establishing its lead role in the
computer industry.
I apologize that my statements here are more brief than I had
intended and may not be as clear and concise as I feel that is
needed to set a better light on this blite.
However, in closing I wish to ask that the Department of Justice
act as a doctor and treat this case as curable form of the AIDS
retrovirus. Medicate it. Prevent it from injecting and taking over
new cells. Prevent it from disabling the guards against it. I also
wish to ask the the Deparment of Justice to act as a strong Prime
Minister. Do not do an appease. Europe settled to give Hitler one
victory, but found that one eventually equated to many. Politics and
history often meet with business to form one. Apply it.
Sincerely,
Casey W. Keller h: 828.438.8543
1255 Mountain Glen Circle 828.438.1550
Morganton, North Carolina 28655 c: 828.443.0515
United States of America e: [email protected]
MTC-00033679
From: Rufus Polson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 9:37am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear Officers of Justice,
I should note before beginning that I am Canadian, and as such
lack standing in a United States proceeding. But it has been
suggested to me that it would, nonetheless, not be improper to
submit a respectfully phrased opinion, and I have serious concerns
about this matter.
My first worry about the proposed settlement is that it cannot
be enforced. The only penalty for noncompliance with the settlement,
as I understand it, is that the settlement may be extended for two
years. But how much effect can this have? Surely a company failing
to comply with a settlement would have little trouble continuing for
two more years to fail to comply. The history of Microsoft's
behaviour suggests that failing to comply with a settlement is
within the scope of their normal actions; the likelihood of this
happening must be taken into account in any settlement, with
noncompliance penalties on a scale sufficient to create strong
disincentive even to such a massive entity.
My second is the lack of any penalty. In a country in which the
criminal law strongly endorses retribution and deterrence as
principles of justice, and in which corporations are legal entities
with much of the rights and standing of persons, it seems
appropriate to keep in mind the principles that are routinely
applied to persons when dealing with corporate lawbreaking. This is
the more true for corporations such as Microsoft in which the
direction is so clearly set by a very few individuals, whose
fortunes and identities are wrapped up closely in the corporation.
In short, Microsoft as a corporation is guilty of a serious
crime--this has been established. Microsoft as a corporation
should be seen to be penalized, so that other corporations and their
administrations realize that illegal monopolist tactics will not
cause their companies to prosper.
My third is the weakness of much of the language, such that many
things which the settlement appears on the surface to prohibit are
in fact not prohibited in any serious way, whereas it seems that
others still can be twisted in such a manner as to actually
legitimize practises that would not normally be considered
acceptable. Many other submissions, as I understand it, have gone
into detail on these issues. I will not spend words describing them
yet again.
Another problem is the inspectors. Their powers are unclear, and
should be strongly specified. The selection process seems
inappropriate--why should Microsoft have a voice in selecting
their watchdog? It is like letting a drug dealer vote on his parole
officer. In addition, it seems as if they are to be paid by
Microsoft--this is another damper on independence. It seems
more reasonable that Microsoft should disburse a sum immediately,
sufficient for their payment for the entire duration of the
settlement, and the Department of Justice should pay them out of
that sum.
Finally, the settlement seems of marginal impact even in its
intent. Even if one were to ensure that it was complied with, clean
up ambiguities in language so that the compliance reflects what some
of the broader statements indicate to be the intent, and
[[Page 30182]]
empower inspection sufficiently well to verify compliance, the
results seem unlikely to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour
to any great extent. Rather, it seems likely that Microsoft will be
forced to curtail a few fringe practises, leaving the general
pattern untouched and perhaps pushing them to intensify new anti-
competitive practises in areas such as the internet and encryption,
where they might take advantage of such laws as the DMCA to use
proprietary encryption schemes and claim any attempt to interoperate
with their encrypted files to be illegal.
In short, the proposed settlement is flabby and overspecific
even in its intent--no tiger capable of reining such a massive
organization, but a tabby cat. Its actual wording makes it a paper
tabby. Let us not forget that this is a corporation with such
contempt for the administration of justice that they presented
falsified evidence to the trial court (their so-called demonstration
of Windows 98 running slower without Internet Explorer, which was a
mockup fabricated for the sole purpose of deceiving the
court--an action which would have surely left any ordinary
defendant facing additional charges for perjury and/or contempt of
court); how likely is it that they will comply with any judicial
decision one micron farther than they are absolutely compelled to?
How likely is it, in fact, that any settlement without a major
structural component will impact Microsoft's practises in any
significant way? In the absence of structural remedies, it is at
least essential that any settlement present a comprehensive
catalogue of practises which are absolutely barred, presented in
ironclad language, with massive, immediate penalties for deviation.
And if this case is to deter others from similar practises and, in
general, pass the message that antitrust law remains alive in the
United States, it should involve a substantial penalty for past
anticompetitive actions.
Respectfully yours,
Rufus Polson
MTC-00033680
From: Walter Shultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many factors which render the proposed final judgement
both ineffective and incomplete. One argument which bears the burden
of many industry concerns is that of Dan Kegel's open letter to the
DOJ (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). This references his
essay on the topic which can be found at (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html). These documents are well written and contain
much information overlooked by the drafters of the PFJ. I have asked
that my name be added to the open letter. Even these points do not
complete the argument against Microsoft's monopolistic activities.
It is evident that the drafters of the judgement have not been
educated to a sufficient understanding of the enormous technical
details which comprise the history of Microsoft's monopoly. These
are, of course, too many to be discussed in a brief email. Please
however consider the following:
* Microsoft's policy of trademarking common industry terms (such
as `windows', `office',
`access', etc.) To the end of excluding competitors' use
of standard terms in the names of their products.
`Windows' for example is a name in use by the `X
Windows' system for the Unix well before `Microsoft
Windows' came to market.
* Microsoft's habit/policy of modifying standard programming
languages(to optimize them for the Microsoft Windows platform) and
passing them off as the original standards.
This is demonstrated in the development of `Microsoft
Visual C++'(a `version' of the C++ programming
language for `Microsoft Windows') and J++(a
`version' of Sun
Microsystems' Java programming language. Since the suit with
Sun, Microsoft has begun calling their version `Active
X') Sadly, programmers who are educated using
Microsoft's non-standard language versions may have difficulty
writing for any platform but `Microsoft Windows' since
these versions do not use standard development libraries. Thus the
pool of development talent for competing operating systems is
effectively decreased by flooding the market with these altered
languages.
Thank you for your time. I wish you all the luck you will
certainly need in effectively considering judgements in this case.
Sincerely,
Walter A. Shultz
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Electronics Technician
[email protected]
MTC-00033681
From: Tyler Janisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to allow Microsoft to
exit the current proceedings with anything less than a hefty
punishment for their anticompetitive practices (which have been
extensively documented and proven throughout the current and
previous cases--I'll not re-write them here).
I believe adequate punishment should be commensurate with the
benefits afforded Microsoft by their own misdeeds. Microsoft has
grown to their current size by their business practices over the
last two decades (an obvious statement)... some practices well
within the law, many not. The anticompetitive practices have, many
times, led to the destruction of a competing business, giving
Microsoft that much more market/power/momentum. On and on to present
day and their present size/control/dominance.
I propose a return to prior `breakup'
considerations. With near-total desktop market share and dominant
server market share, plus near-total market share for office
productivity software and a dominant hold on server and back-end
software--adding to that a recently-obtained �7E80% hold on
the web browser market (with that, exhibiting their usual
`practices' to generate a general Net/Web dependence on
their technologies), I feel that they should, at the least, be split
into independent businesses focused on: Operating Systems,
Applications, Network Technologies.
It is obvious that any monetary punishment cannot be effective,
short of fining them tens of billions of dollars (and even then,
their market momentum may make that amount insignificant, in a very
short time). Earlier considerations led to a ``make them donate
to schools'' proposal. That has, thankfully, been thrown out
and any similar resolution proposal should be discarded as well; any
market Microsoft is `forced' to donate to will simply
become another domination for Microsoft. Please consider Microsoft's
future with utmost care. It may seem rather dramatic to say, but is
no less true: the world's future rides on your decision.
MTC-00033682
From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. Others, more
eloquent than I, will detail the reasons why this proposal will not
restore competition in the marketplace or provide sufficient cause
for Microsoft to change their monopolistic behavior. As a software
professional with over twenty years experience and whose
undergraduate course of study was in computer science, I have
watched as Microsoft has continually impeded innovative
developments. Microsoft follows a fairly consistent plan:
(1) Ignore the innovation (e.g., web browser, disk compression,
java, etc.) until it can no longer be ignored. Then,
(2) Respond to the innovation by saying that it is without
merit. When this is insufficient to keep the innovation from the
market,
(3) Either buy the developer of the innovation or
``partner'' with them. ``Partner''ing allows
Microsoft the time to develop the software in-house. Once the in-
house version is ready, Microsoft will ruthlessly
``bundle'' it into their offering at ``no additional
cost'' thereby destroying the market for the original
developer. Finally,
(4) Claim the innovation was due to Microsoft in the first
place.
For the good of the consumer, market, industry, and country this
anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior must stop. Based on the
the past behavior of Microsoft, with respect to previous Department
of Justice actions, there is nothing which suggests that Microsoft
will follow the spirit, or even the letter, of the current proposed
settlement. They have consistently flaunted the law and have treated
any cost or enforcement action as a normal ``cost of doing
business.'' Without any meaningful competition they can do this
with impunity.
I would encourage the Department to re-evaluate this far too
lenient settlement and devise a solution which, even in the face of
determined Microsoft attempts at circumvention, will help restore
competition and innovation to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Johnson -bs scj at marcsys
period com
13906 Flint Rock Road
[[Page 30183]]
Rockville, Maryland 20853-2649 U.S.A.
MTC-00033683
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Micrsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Whom it May Concern:
Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust
case.
There are several significant failures of the proposed
settlement. I will limit my comments to one specific problem.
I believe Microsoft should give $1 billion in cash to help
schools, instead of software and some money. This would seem to only
hurt Microsoft's competitors in the education market as it is
difficult to compete with free software. A far better settlement
might be for Microsoft to give their proposed $1 billion--in
cash--to an independent foundation, which will provide our most
needy schools with the computer technology of their choice.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion about this
very important decision.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Zane
Network Administrator
University of Oregon School of Law
MTC-00033684
From: Marc Brenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement revised letter with address and
phone #
---- Original Message ----
From: Marc Brenner
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I and my family feel that the proposed settlement will not
benefit the public interest. Microsoft should be forced to open its
applications to other platforms, so that software and hardware from
other vendors will run without crashing with Microsoft products and
so that other platforms can develop and integrate with Microsoft
applications.
The court should hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act to
give all parties the abilities to participate in settlement.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marc Brenner
835 Topper Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549 Ph: 925 283 3408
MTC-00033685
From: Michael James Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56am
Subject: Simple to impelement remedys.
Dear Sirs,
Microsoft clearly has maintained a monopoly via unlawful means.
They do not deserve the public's trust, as they do not have our best
interest in mind.
Most behavioral or structural remedies are too hard to
effectively enforce on an adaptable company such as Microsoft. So
instead affect a policy change for the Federal Government through
careful restrictions on Microsoft.
Switch the entire federal government over from MS office and
mail products to other companies products like Sun Microsystem's
StarOffice products. Use an open file format, such as Rich Text,
Html, or Latex as the standard for documents. Word documents can be
easily changed over to these types through its SaveAs command, and
this process can be automated through simple programs most
programmers could write in a couple hours.
This sounds like an expensive switch over. Have Microsoft pay
for the manpower to switch over all agencies. Make them split the
cost of any new licenses 50%/50%.
To make this switch within the power of the court, you would
have to phrase the judgement in a way similar to: -----
All licenses granted to the federal government of Microsoft
Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are hereby revoked.
(The contracts cancelled).
A new 5 year license is given in lieu of the old license of each
copy of that software.
Microsoft may not issue new licenses to the government for any
Non-Operating System product. Microsoft may not bundle any office
productivity software into its Operating Systems. This is in effect
for the next 10 years.
Microsoft will pay all labor costs associated with switching to
new office products, as well as 50% of the cost of all replacement
software.
Any state or municipal governments may also have these same
terms if they request it.
This seems to be an easy to enforce and equitable judgement that
can be levied against Microsoft as a punishment, and does not cost
any party but Microsoft an undue expense, while still being fair to
Microsoft.
The only party remaining to be dealt with is the OEM's who have
been forced into licensing contracts with Microsoft. To remedy that
situation, allow any of them to cancel their contracts with
Microsoft at any time in the next 5 years, and enforce a single
PUBLISHED price for all OEM software purchases of Microsoft
software. Allow compulsory licencing to at that price to any OEM
that wants it.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Michael Langford
MTC-00033686
From: Mike Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello Judge,
I'm am writing this message to convey my opinion on the
Microsoft settlement.
I feel that Microsoft is guilty of the charges brought by the
government. I am greatly disappointed at the settlement. I read it
the day it was released and quite frankly, I was appalled. And then
to read a few weeks later, Microsoft's proposed settlement in civil
suits where Microsoft would give computers and software to the
education market told me that Microsoft has not learned. The
proposed settlement would have devastated Apple Computer's lead in
the education market! I used to work for Digital Equipment
Corporation. I ``heard stories'', many first hand, of the
practices Microsoft used to great effect against DEC. Stories of
``acquired'' technologies, of Mr. Gates asking that
competing technologies be cancelled, of Microsoft not pushing DEC's
Alpha chip. Yes, they are ``stories''. Many were settled
in out of court settlements so that we'll never know the final
truth, but they are indicative of business practices practiced by a
monopoly.
To fairly settle this court action, I propose the following:
(Not limited to these, just some things I believe should be
addressed).
Open standards of document formats. Microsoft Office is the
standard. Allow other companies to compete on form and function and
innovation.
. A business practices oversight committee that has real power
to keep Microsoft in check. Microsoft should have no say in who
would be on this committee.
. Limit Microsoft's expansion into media. They have MSN, MSNBC,
etc.. I don't want to watch ``All Microsoft, All the
time''. People who don't know better will see Microsoft on TV
and on their computer and be ``locked in''. How does
someone compete fairly when everything says
``Microsoft''?? If anything needs to be split from the
main company, it's the media portion. It is truly scary.
. Mandate government use of alternatives to Microsoft products.
There's no good reason for the government to be feeding a monopoly.
There are excellent operating systems out there. (Linux, OpenVMS, HP
UX, etc..)
. Mandate to Microsoft that the government will only use open
standard formats for things like documents and programming, and
networking interfaces. Microsoft must stop practicing ``embrace
and extend'' where they take an open standard, add their
extensions, and lock out others. In conclusion, I would hope that
the court will ensure that Microsoft does not walk away from this
with an slap on the wrist and a virtual ``ok'' to continue
its predatory practices.
I thank you for your time and your patience in reading this
message.
mike
[email protected]
http://www.yelof.com
MTC-00033687
From: The Amazing Llama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern,
It is my belief, as a computer hobbyist and programmer and as a
citizen of California, that the Microsoft AntiTrust case will not do
anything to:
(a) remedy the situation that Microsoft has put the computer
industry into
(b) punish Microsoft for its illegal actions, of which it has
been convicted.
The proposal does not even attempt to do either of these things.
Instead, it scolds the company for its bad deeds and politely asks
them not to do it again. If it does not comply with this, it will be
asked again to stop.
I am left to wonder if this would ever stop anyone from doing
anything that they wanted to be doing-- and Microsoft has
proved again and again that what it wants to do is control the
computer industry by any means
[[Page 30184]]
necessary. The proposal needs to make Microsoft pay for their
actions, and they need to be punished for the results.
If Microsoft were a person (which is what a corporation models),
they would be fined and jailed for these actions. This sort of idea,
extended to a corporate level, would therefore make simple sense.
Fine the company (and base the fine on the amount of money they
make, and remember that that is a whole lot of money). Then put
restrictions on them so that they cannot repeat their actions. If
they do repeat their actions, BREAK UP THE COMPANY. Or at the very
least force them to open source Windows. These are the only
two-- let me repeat that-- the ONLY two threats that
Microsoft is afraid of. There is no fine that they will not recoup,
no apology they cannot falsify, no time limit they will not lay low
for. They will, as they have shown time and time again, revert to
business as usual: bully everyone else with the power that you hold
by owning Office and Windows.
Remember that this case came to court largely because Microsoft
flaunted the 1995 court decision that essentially did what the new
proposal will do again: shake a stern finger at them, give them a
tongue-lashing, and send them on the way after they have promised
not to do it again. Remember that Microsoft made that promise six
years ago, and making it again now will be no more binding, and
Microsoft will pay even less attention to it, because they have more
power and more markets than they did then.
The fact you would give them as much power as you have in the
proposal stages is evidence of their power: the only way that
Microsoft could get a more comfortable punishment would be if they
were forced to give their excess software away into a market that
they did not control, such as education (which you probably know is
their proposed solution to their current antitrust case with the
private companies suing them).
This is evidenced by the utter uselessness of the proposal, and
by the amount fo control Microsoft has of the execution of the
``punishments'' laid out within it. For instance, that
they can decide what parties to give out documentation and help to
is merely giving them another weapon, and making that weapon
sacrosanct in the process, because it is not a ``weapon''
that they are using to their advantage but a
``punishment'' that they must follow. Also, the fact that
they are given a say at all in the council of three that oversees
them is imbecilic. A man put in jail does not get to choose his
jailmates or his prison guards, and Microsoft should not either.
Incidentally, Steve Satchell would be a great choice for the
committee. He has a good amount of experience in consumer software,
hardware, and OS design. He is further elevated by his lack of ties
to other companies in the industry who would possibly gain by his
actions. Perhaps what angers me most about the current proposal is
that it is being done ``to help the computer industry in these
times of economic turmoil,'' which can be translated from PR-
speech to English as ``to make people buy Windows XP, which
will make them buy lots of new computers, which will boost the
computer industry.'' This is a short-sighted remedy to a deep-
seated problem. People buying computers now will keep everyone in
the industry afloat, but it will be best for Microsoft, who makes
money off of each computer sold. Worse, the short-sighted remedy
only buries the problem deeper: it strengthens every company's
dependence on Microsoft, both in fact and in mindset. Essentially,
you are sending the message that without Microsoft, the economy is
doomed. And that is to say that without someone flagrantly breaking
the law, the economy cannot survive. And that is not a message that
you should be sending. Microsoft has broken the law. Remember that.
This is a fact that has been proven in court twice, and the supreme
court decided that it was not worth their time to hear the
arguments, because there is little chance that the 12 highest judges
in our great country would find the facts any less factual: real
companies have really been hurt by Microsoft, and they have lost
real profits. -Seth A. Roby
MTC-00033688
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I want to offer my support for the settlement with Microsoft,
which is to be finalized at the end of the month. Although the case
against Microsoft seemed to have merit, Microsoft appears to be the
victim of having not contributed to the right political campaign at
the right time. A break-up of Microsoft would lead to more questions
and further undermine the economy, so a compromise is in the
interest of everyone.
Efforts at breaking up Microsoft are far beyond what is
necessary to encourage more competition in the software industry. To
the lay person, it would seem that the government is out to get big
corporations, like in the tobacco industry, in order to reap a
financial whirlwind. The remedial steps Microsoft has agreed to have
in some cases surpassed the government's complaints, so in the
interest of fair play, it is time to end further litigation. As a
result of constant monitoring by a committee of software experts, as
agreed to in the settlement, the terms would appear to be verifiable
and an effective tool to allow more players to thrive in the
software market. Please allow common sense to prevail and this
extremely valuable piece of the American economy to stay intact.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Sweeney
MTC-00033689
Santa Barbara Industrial Association www.sbia.org
2141 Victoria Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 . Tel
805-965-9415
Fax 964-7915 . e-mail: [email protected]
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Support the settlement agreement and end the Microsoft lawsuit.
The Microsoft lawsuit has already wasted over $40 million of
taxpayers money. Even worse, this misguided lawsuit, which was filed
in the name of preserving competition, will stifle innovation, hurt
consumers and penalize success. Microsoft has been a model for a
corporate success story and the pursuit of the American Dream. 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 federal government should not reduce a company's
incentive to innovate.
Government intervention into the world of high tech programming
and design sets a dangerous and potentially disastrous precedent.
Dictating to Microsoft what technology it can develop to increase
the effectiveness of existing products or meet the rapidly expanding
needs of users could cripple the technological innovation that has
been the hallmark of our high tech, internet economy.
The Microsoft lawsuit hurts consumers, rather than helps them.
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 the
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 potentially disastrous precedent.
Dictating to Microsoft what technology it can develop to increase
the effectiveness of existing products or meet the rapidly expanding
needs of users could cripple the technological innovation that has
been the hallmark of our 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 that $2 trillion of
lost wealth, primarily the result of the government's sustained
attack on Microsoft's right to innovate. After all, today Microsoft,
tomorrow Intel. Microsoft appears to be a Government target because
of their success as a company. We used to reward success and
innovation, rather than attack a company because of their success.
Microsoft's success should be viewed as an asset, not a liability.
The consumer has benefitted from Microsoft's success. The prospect
of future benefits to the consumer should not be stifled by our own
government. Similarly, other companies should not have to worry that
their success could someday be threatened by heavy-handed government
action, oppressive attorney fees and a legal action designed to
harrass, publicly smear and possibly even break apart the business.
The message we must send is that success should be rewarded and not
punished. We hope the consent
[[Page 30185]]
decree is adopted and the federal lawsuit is dropped.
Sincerely,
Joe Armendarz
Executive Director
SB County Industrial Association
MTC-00033690
James F. Taylor, Jr.
302 Norma Circle
Greenville, TX 75402
December 9,2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Renata:
In response to the recent ruling regarding the Microsoft
antitrust case, I would like to place my comments into the public
record regarding the proposed settlement between the Department of
Justice and Microsoft. I would like to address a few items that make
the proposed settlement both ineffective and considerably flawed.
First, in regard to the proposed identification of who is and
who is not eligible for disclosure of APIs by Microsoft, the
exclusion of noncommercial entities from this remedy is both
inadequate and will serve to further hamper free programs like
Apache Web server and Sendmail. These programs are direct
competitors of Microsoft's IIS and Exchange Servers, and they will
not receive any API assistance that is guaranteed to commercial
competitors.
Open Source products designated to allow free operating systems
like OpenBSD an Linux to talk to Windows over networks would be
irrevocably crushed by this loophole. Section III(j)(2), part (c)
specifically hinders any free software from benefiting from
Microsoft's published APIs by the language:
* * *(c) meets reasonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business,
Second, the remedy should address the incorporation of Microsoft
products such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player without
consent of the consumer during installation. It also should address
the lack.of an easy method to uninstall these programs should the
consumer desire another 3rd party too to be used in place of the
bundled applications. Microsoft is leveraging its OS monopoly
against third party Vendors like Opera and MusicMatch Jukebox by
bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player without an
uninstall or a choice during installation. Microsoft should, as part
of the remedy, be forced to allow these tools to be removed or at
the very least be uninstalled by both OEMS and end users. It is a
simple remedy that Microsoft could comply with the next version of
Windows or with a service pack for current Windows users.
Third, the remedy does not go far enough to force the
publication of APIs and other interoperable portions, such as
document formats, of Windows itself. These protocols should be open
and subject to review from the entire industry. In addition, changes
need to be decided not by Microsoft, who have proven time and again
to cripple APIs to further their own programs at the expense of
other third party programs. All of this was done without the consent
of the user, and in most cases, was done without the user's
knowledge as part of a ``service pack'' or other update to
the program. All third party vendors of applications directly
competing with Microsoft made their file formats and APIs known so
the interoperability of their programs with Windows could be
accomplished quickly. It is time for Microsoft to reciprocate
without question or loophole.
Thank you for reading my comments, and I hope that these
suggestions will be helpful in crafting a fair and equitable remedy
that benefits not only the consumer, but Microsoft and its
competitors. The computing landscape should not be as barren as it
is today, with the ashes of hundreds of competitors to Microsoft
crushed and broken by Microsoft's heavy-handed and illegal tactics.
Despite Microsoft's claim to the contrary, these remedies will not
stifle innovation, and they will not hinder Microsoft in any way
other than to prevent it from leveraging its market share against
its competitors. If these remedies are enacted and the loopholes
closed, Microsoft will have to do what it has not had to do for a
long time in the marketplace. They will have to compete on merit and
innovation, rather than crushing its competition under the boot of
their monopoly.
I appreciate your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James E. Taylor, Jr.
302 Norma Circ
Greenville, TX 75402
MTC-00033691
FROM :
Jul. 20 2001 05:50AM P2
FAX NO. :
Rockingham County Republican Party
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As the former Assistant Legal Counsel for the North Carolina
Republican Party, I have a strong interest in how our legal system
interacts with business. While many people have various opinions on
the merits of the Microsoft case, most reasonable people can agree
that if both the Justice Department and Microsoft reached a
settlement, then it's time to put the litigation behind us.
It is for this reason that I call on Judge KolIar Kotelly to
approve the settlement between Microsoft and the federal government.
It is important that we do not interfere with it at business
unnecessarily at any level of government, state or federal. That is
why since 1999, I have been greatly troubled by the federal
government's attempt to bring about unprecedented harsh penalties
against Microsoft. That's why, as a lawyer, I felt encouraged when I
read of the landmark settlement. We've got to minimize further
consumer harm by freeing up Microsoft to be innovative, creative and
cost-effective. I know that I rely on Microsoft computer operating
systems on a regular basis, and I believe that they are the highest
quality products available. These products will only improve with
the closure of this legal matter.
Please let Judge Kollar-Kotelly that I strongly support the
settlement, and I hope this balance of this proceeding will end
soon. In that fashion, Microsoft can return to the business of
innovation and developing new products. Also, government attorneys
can get back to more pressing cases.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Matthew W. Smith
Vice Chairman
PO Box 528--Eden, NC 27289
MTC-00033692
FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05: 51am p3
R. Lee Currie, Jr.
Former Executive Director
North Carolina Republican Party
104 Brookline Court--Clayton North Carolina
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As the former Executive Director of the North Carolina
Republican Party, I have a uniquely political perspective on why the
suit against Microsoft was filed. In short Microsoft's competitors
did not like the fact that Microsoft is the established leader in
technological innovation in the United States, and used the legal
system in an attempt to stop them from maintaining their market
share.
This is not the first time this trick has been tried. Anyone
remember the ill-fated USFL (United States Football League)? All was
well until the NFL (National Football League) outclassed, outshined
and outperformed the USFL in terms of market share. The next thing
you know, the USFL files a federal antitrust suit against the NFL,
claiming unfair business practices. It didn't work: the NFL is more
popular than ever, and no one even remembers what the USFL acronym
stands for. Anti-trust violation? No. Superior product? Yes. Sound
familiar?
This time, Microsoft's competitors have taken the stakes to a
whole new level by lobbying the federal government to drive a stake
in the Microsoft's heart. The competitors'' lawyers and
lobbyists won't stop until they destroy their competitor. Again,
Microsoft has the superior product, so their opponents wilt try to
continue to play a game with the legal system until they get their
way.
That is why I call on Judge Kollar Kotelly to approve the
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the federal government.
The case should be settled now. Let's not give Microsoft's
competitors mow time to lobby, cajole and influence important
decision makers that the settlement isn't in the government's
interest, Let's close the chapter
[[Page 30186]]
of this unfortunate series of events by approving the settlement.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
Sincerely,
Lee Currie
MTC-00033693
FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05:45AM P2
North Carolina Federation of Republican Men
6706 Queen Anne's Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As a small businessman who depends upon Microsoft for both my
home and office computer, I am gratified that the federal government
is now willing to settle its case against Microsoft. It is my
sincere hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve this settlement.
As State President of the North Carolina Federation of
Republican Men, I represent many men, who, like me, lost money in my
retirement account when tech stocks plummeted, an occurrence that is
attributable the suit against Microsoft. I'm relatively young, and
didn't have a tremendous amount of money to lose. I feel sorry for
those who lost more.
As a former Legislative Liaison of the North Carolina Automobile
Dealers Association, I am all too aware that business can work in
concert with, or in opposition to, government, I am aware of the
tremendous cost to business that occurs when lawsuits are
continually pursued. They drain resources and energy from employees
that should be spent in other things. And lawsuits usually cost the
taxpayers money This one certainly has.
The reasons I have outlined are why I hope Judge Kollar Kotelly
will accept the settlement and let all parties move forward, Thank
you for your consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Dee Stewart
State President
MTC-00033694
Jul. 20 2001 05:45AM P3
FROM :
FAX NO. :
Rockingham County Republican Party
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As the Chairman of the Rockingham County Republican Party, I am
deeply concerned about the effect that prolonging the federal
government's lawsuit against Microsoft would have on businesses in
our community and other communities across North Carolina. I want to
request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approve the settlement that is
pending.
The proposed settlement will be good for all parties. There is a
perception that Microsoft's competitors played a role in trying to
work against Microsoft's position with politicians and the media. We
don't need more tug of war between these litigants. We need to
accept the settlement and move forward. Because the economy is in
poor condition, it is imperative that we put this matter behind us.
Both the industry and the government attorneys need to focus on
other matters, in my opinion. As Chairmen of the Rockingham County
Republican Party, I am encouraging all of our members to support the
settlement.
As inspect the components of the settlement, I believe it to be
fair to both sides, with Microsoft guaranteeing certain provisions
and the government getting enforcement provisions never before seen
in an anti-trust settlement. I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly
approves this settlement.
Sincerely,
Phil Berger, Jr.
PO Box 528--Eden, NC 27289
MTC-00033695
FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05:46AM P4
North Carolina Federation of Young Republicans
7465 Bluff Point Lane
Denver, NC 28037
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
In addition to serving as Chairman of the North Carolina
Federation of Young Republicans, I am also the co-owner of a small
computer business, I use Microsoft products every day to enhance my
productivity, as well as to improve the level of service I offer my
customers.
I realize what a big difference that Microsoft; has made in the
working lives of millions of Americans. I have written numerous
letters to North Carolina's Congressional delegation, requesting a
quick and mutually beneficial settlement of the Microsoft suit. What
small business owner wouldn't agree that the lawsuit filed by the
federal government was quite harmful to the high-tech sector as well
as the stock market.
As Chairman of the North Carolina Federation of Young
Republicans, I calI on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve the
reasonable settlement which has been approved by the company, the
federal government as well as nine of the states which had formerly
sued Microsoft. American business needs to move forward.
Sincerely,
Jason Saine
State Chairman
MTC-00033696
FAX NO.:
Jul. 20 2001 05:39AM P2
REPRESENTATIVE
76TH DlSTRlCT
OFFICE ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
E-MAIL:
HOME ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE & FAX:
MICHAEL O. HARRlNGTON
303 LEGISLATIVE BUILDlNG
RALEIGH, NC 27801-1096
(919) 733-5823
(919) 754-3175 FAX
[email protected]
3324 LINCOLN LANE
GASTONIA, NC 28056
(704)853-8574
January 9, 2002
COMMITTEES:
APPROPRlATlON$
SUBcoMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
SCIENCe & TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
In addition to serving in the North Carolina House of
Representatives from Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, I am also a
small businessman. In the state legislature I serve on the Science
and Technology Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Information Technology.
In those posts, I am one of the decision makers as to where the
state of North Carolina is able to spend its money on technology.
From that perspective and in my own business, I realize what a big
difference Microsoft has made in the working lives of millions of
Americans.
I have, in the past, been the author of articles concerning the
Microsoft situation in which I take the position that the lawsuit
filed by the federal government was unhealthy for the high-tech
sector in particular but for business in general.
A major decline in Microsoft stock and in the shares of many
high-tech companies happened the day following a breakdown in
negotiations between Microsoft, the federal government, and the
states'' attorneys general who would not agree to a settlement.
The pain inflicted on so many people's savings and stock accounts
was mighty. Of course, the Microsoft incident was not the only
reason for stock to go `down, but it was one reason.
Ms. Renata Hesse
January 9, 2002
Today, I understand that Judge Kollar-Ketelly has a reasonable
settlement that has been approved by the company, the federal
government, as well as nine of the states which had formerly sued
Microsoft, including New York.
I would heartily endorse this settlement and hope that the good
judge would as well. All parties need to move forward.
Sincerely,
Michael O. Harrington
Representative Michael O. Harrington
District 76
[[Page 30187]]
North Carolina General Assembly
MOH:jal
MTC-00033697
John C. Comeau
2 Rita Lane
Littleton MA 01464
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
I am a member of Americans for Technology Leadership, an
organization of citizens, consumers, and high-tech professionals who
are dedicated to minimizing unnecessary regulatory intrusion into
the information technology industry. For this reason, I am writing
to urge the court to accept the settlement reached in the antitrust
case between Microsoft and the Justice Department lawyers. This case
has been a tremendous drain on the creative energies of the
technology world, and its settlement can only be a positive for the
country as we deal, with a lingering recession.
The information technology industry is dependent on the freedom
to innovate that is essential foe new products to come into being.
The implications of the suggested remedies beyond those reached in
the agreement are ominous. The high-tech sector cannot endure the
added impediment of a stultifying new regulatory presence by the
federal government. If the issue is serious wrongs on the part of
Microsoft, then punish them and move on. If, however, the issue is
creating a windfall for less successful competitors, then please
don't punish the rest of us by imposing new sanctions, and
regulatory hoops to jump through.
This country will be much better served if the Justice
Department spends its time concerned with real threats to our safety
and liberty, and if the companies involved in high-tech all got back
to innovating rather than litigating. I ask that the Justice
Department advocate this settlement to the judge, and in doing so
serve the American people, and the nation's greater interests.
Respectfully,
John C. Comeau
MTC-00033698
January 16, 2002
Ms. Susan Johnson
11794 Rockaway Lane
Fairfax, VA 22030
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Now that the federal government has finally settled its long
antitrust case against Microsoft, I hope states still involved with
the suit will do the same. It is time for consumers to come together
and move the economy and our country in a positive direction--a
forward and economically strong direction.
The settlement's provisions protect Microsoft's ability to
continue to be innovative and, this hopefully, will revitalize
competition and the technology industry for the betterment of us
all. Consumers and investors will reap the benefits of the
settlement and this should help to get the engines running toward a
healthy and properous economic stance.
Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Susan N. Johnson
MTC-00033699
January 15, 2002
Ms. Susan Fujii
13859 Wakley Court
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I was pleased to read that the federal government has finally
settled its long antitrust case against Microsoft. I hope the other
states still involved with the suit will do so as well. Now is not
the time to waste taxpayer dollars on drawn out lawsuits. It is time
for the government and the high tech industry to come together to
rally our nation's economy.
If the settlement can provide a jump start to better economic
indicators and rev up a once highly stimulating technology sector,
than the government should not stand in the way. Our nation, more
than ever, needs some positive news and a glimmer of hope for a
positive future. I hope the Justice Department will do what it can
to provide the citizens of this county that hope and encourage it to
grow into ever increasing prosperity.
MTC-00033700
January 20, 2002
Mr. David Foreman
13859 Wakley Court
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse.
I was pleased to read that the federal government has finally
settled its long antitrust case against Microsoft. I hope the other
states still involved with the suit will do so as well. Now is not
the time to waste taxpayer dollars on drawn out lawsuits. It is time
for the government and the high tech industry to come together to
rally our nation`s economy.
If the settlement can provide a jump start to better economic
indicators and rev up a once highly stimulating technology sector,
than the government should not stand in the way. Our nation, more
than ever, needs some positive news and a glimmer of hope for a
positive future. I hope the Justice Department will do what it can
to provide the citizens of this county that hope and encourage it to
grow into ever increasing prosperity.
Regards,
MTC-00033701
January 16, 2002
Ms. Kathy Buckley
14701 St. Germain Drive
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
As jobless rates and economic indicators continue to tell
consumers that times are getting worse, I think Microsoft's
settlement with the federal government could provide a beginning
bright light. By settling the case, we could once again see the
competitive prosperity of the 90's foster the necessary kick the
economy needs to move in a positive direction. The high tech
industry has been a driving force for our nation in recent years and
if Microsoft's settlement revitalizes competition, than we should
welcome this opportunity. This long drawn out case should be
resolved once and for all, and the focus should be on lowering the
jobless rate, increasing consumer confidence and strengthening our
economy,
Best regards,
MTC-00033702
JAN-17-2002 02:49 AM P. 01
Jan-l0-2002 08:28 From NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
16032716889 T-186 P.001/002
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street Concord, NW.,
03301-6328, TEL:(803)271-3317
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-733-2964
COMMITTEE ON MUNIClPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse,
I am writing to express support for the settlement proposed in
the case of U.S. v. Microsoft.
Although I am not in the habit of submitting public comment in a
case like this, I believe that the time has come to stop the
persecution of this company, stop the needless spending of tax
dollars, and allow this company to get back to business.
For many months now, the Federal government has pursued this
company and threatened to break up its operations because of claims
of its monopoly status. Finally, the parties have come to an
agreement that is far reaching and addressee all the courts
concerns. This agreement should be awarded with acceptance by the
government.
Extraordinary amounts of money already been spent prosecuting
this case. As a state representative, I work hard to make we that
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and believe the Federal government
should do SO too. Many citizens of this country are out of work and
are struggling to make ends meet, Americans are less concerned about
the issues between computer companies and much more concerned about
how they are going to provide for their families and their
future& We should all take a lesson from this and end needless
spending as quickly as possible.
Microsoft has been a a strong force in our economy and should be
allowed to get back to the business of serving consumers. I hope you
will approve this settlement as quickly as possible.
[[Page 30188]]
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Betsey Patten
State Representative, Carroll County, District 9
MTC-00033703
David A Graham
401 Oak Avenue
Elizabeth, Pa.
15037-1631
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
The Microsoft Anti Trust case settlement has been a long time
coming. I am very glad to see that there is now a light at the end
of the tunnel. However, I don't see how anyone can even debate the
settlment's fairness. Microsoft is giving up a great deal to end
this lawsuit, going so far as to give their competitors an unfair
edge in the future.
I use Microsoft products both at work and at home. For years
Microsoft has provided American consumers like me with superior
products, creating innovative and compatible technologies useful in
so many areas. Now, with the settlement Microsoft has pledged to
share information, including the internal interfaces for its Windows
operating system, with its competitors and make it easier for people
to install non-Microsoft products in Windows.
The government has more important matters to deal with. It
should not be intervening in the affairs of private companies.
Please hold the settlement and allow Microsoft to move on with their
business. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David A. Graham i I C/c Sen R Sanrorum I
MTC-00033704
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
January 16, 2002
Dear Attorney Hesse,
Please allow me to add mine to the voices of citizens from
across this country who believe that enough is enough with regards
to the Microsoft ``antitrust'' case. By this point any
casual observer can see that the consuming public stands to gain
nothing by a protracted fight, and that only the dubious efforts of
Microsoft's rivals have kept afloat any desperate attempt to skew
the market to favor certain players. (And intrude government
regulators where they are not needed at the same time.) Even the
Justice Department has seen fit to reach an agreement to settle, and
that is why I write: let's end this and move on.
I am the owner of an innovative start-up company myself, and I
sympathize with Mr. Gates billionaire though he is, who seems to be
targeted for his success. Although my business is not software
related (and I have no affiliation to Microsoft) I had the
opportunity to tour the Redmond Microsoft campus a few years ago,
and came away impressed by the incredible focus and dedication to
excellence the Microsoft workers all seemed to have. Perhaps Oracle,
Sun, AOL and the others would be better served to dump their
lawyers, and hire some people who can mirror the Microsoft work
ethic and passion for excellence.
Sincerely,
D P. Sweeney
MTC-00033705
Brian K. Wright
101 Taylor Street
Littleton, Massachusetts 01460
Renata HeSse Trial Attorney
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 2O530
Dear Attorney Hesse,
It is my understanding that the justice Department is
recommending a settlement agreement in the Microsoft case to Judge
Kollar Kotelly that is amicable to both sides. I think that is a
wise move for our country and the economy at this time.
I fully support the Justice Department enforcing the antitrust
laws, and the pursuit of Microsoft if they were deemed to be in
violation. However, if the federal lawyers believe that the
settlement properly punishes Microsoft, as well as establishes
measures to make sure it doesn't happen again, then isn't this sort
of compromise what we should hope for? If the Microsoft rivals seek
more remedies specific to their businesses then that is not the
public interest being served. Crippling this major innovator and job
producer shouldn't be anyone's goal.
I have the vantage point of being someone who has co- founded a
national trade association in the high-tech field, as well as having
served as an Assessor in a town with many high-tech businesses. I
can state with confidence that what the economy needs now is a
healthy Microsoft and its competitors all returning to the business
of designing and selling software and systems, I hope this
settlement helps to achieve that.
MTC-00033706
P. 0. Box 2555, Woburn, Ma 01888-1055
781-933-8228 Fax 781-933-2091
I am a small businessman who would like to express my support
for the proposal to end the case against Microsoft by settlement.
For three years the government has wasted millions of tax
dollars trying to chase Microsoft, mostly because other companies
have tried to get the government to do what they can't: beat them.
This case has not served America well and may have given foreign
companies a chance to get into American information industries. We
need to show more unity in this country in ways, and ending this
case would be a great symbol.
I appreciate the chance to speak out, and I understand the
volume of mail you must have to go through. I hope my concerns, and
those of others are brought before the Judge.. It's time to end the
case against Microsoft.
Sincerely,
William J. Cavalucci
WJP Realty
MTC-00033707
North Java
4127 Route 98
PO Box 206
North Java, KY 14113
535-7313
Fax 535-7487
DAVE REISDORF, INC.
I6 Clinton St. PO Box 395 Batavia, NY 14021
Phone 343-4453 Fax 343-641 I Toll Free (888)
255-0087
January 14, 2002
Warsaw
3758 S. Warsaw Rd.
Route 19
Warsaw, NY 14568
786-2560
Fax 786-3556
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
We have been following with interest the government's extensive
role in the Microsoft Antitrust Suit.
I am very pleased that a tentative settlement has been reached.
The last thing our nation's economy needs is additional litigation
that will lead to further regulation of the high-tech industry.
Anti-trust laws were meant to protect consumers. It appears
companies are using them to protect themselves from strong
competition. Settlement in this case is in everyone's best
interests. We the consumer's of the United States can certainly come
up with better uses for the millions of dollars the government has
spent to fight this case. Microsoft's innovation has lead to lower
prices for software and increased benefits for the consumer.
If antitrust law is in place to protect the consumer, where is
your case? Please settle this and move-on. It is in the best
interest of the government, the people and the economy.
Sincerely,
Dave Reisdorf, Inc.
Anthony L Peca, Jr.
Sales and Consumer Relations
MTC-00033708
JAN-12-2002 05:32AM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCORD,NH 03301-6328
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
(603)271-3164
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse:
It is my understanding that your office is now accepting public
comment in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. I write in support of that
agreement.
This settlement is truIy an achievement by both parties and
should be approved quickly, I do not work in the technology field,
but have done substantial research on this issue and believe that
this case has gone on far too
[[Page 30189]]
long In addition to spending too many taxpayer dollars, the
government has unfairly persecuted this company end it should end,
now, The frustration of Microsoft's competitors is understandable
but misplaced. They have the opportunity to offer products that
would compete with Microsoft's, but have not had the innovation to
do so. The proposed settlement will allow Microsoft's competitors
and customers more freedoms and it will help them become more
profitable. Further restrictions or controls placed on Microsoft by
the government will not be beneficial but instead will force America
to take a backseat to other nations in the field of technology.
Spending millions of additional dollars in these proceedings is no
longer necessary or appropriate, This is a time of national crisis,
and we need to be cognizant of the economy and public spending. it
is now imperative that we put more resources into defense and
national security rather than on needless litigation against an
innovative company.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Rogers Johnson
State Representative
MTC-00033709
JAN-12-2002 05:32 AM
Jan 10-02 12:43a
Carlos Gonzalez
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Office of the Speaker
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse;
I am writing this letter as a State Representative to express my
support on behalf of a settlement that has been proposed in case of
the United States v Microsoft. Finally an agreement has been reached
in this case that has gone on for too long. It is an amazing
achievement and I hope that you will award this by approving it as
fast as possible. The federal government needs to focus its
resources and time on more important matters facing our country not
on litigating companies like Microsoft, etc. As a State
Representative I work hard to make sure that the money the citizens
taxpayers of New Hampshire give to State government is spent wisely
and believe the same needs to be done nationally. It is my
understanding Microsoft's competitors spurred this case. It has
taken too long and it has gone too far spending taxpayer's dollars.
However great their frustrations are when competing with the
excellence of Microsoft's products, they should not be allowed to
carry these legal proceedings on any longer.
The time has come to end this case and the needless expending of
millions of taxpayers dollars. It is not longer necessary or
appropriate. In this time of economic uncertainty. We need to be
looking for ways to spend government money (taxpayers''
dollars) more wisely,
In conclusion, I am asking that you please approve this
settlement between the United States v Microsoft. Thank you for your
public service.
Sincerely,
Carlos Gonzalez
State Representative
Hillsborough County, District 48
Manchester, NH 03102
State House, Concord, New Hampshire 051101-4988,
Telephone: (603) 271-5661, Fax: (803), 271-3809
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-736-8964
MTC-00033710
January 14, 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 urge you to support the proposed settlement of
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. While I believe that many
of the allegations raised by the lawsuit against Microsoft may have
merit, it is time to shift the focus of the Department of Justice
and our tax dollars to other priorities.
While the proposed settlement is not a home run for any of the
interested parties, it does have a little bit of something in it for
everybody while maintaining its overall balance. One way that you
can tell that the settlement is balances is the fact that nobody is
very happy with the proposed settlement.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you would
like more information.
Thank you,
Keep fighting them Phil Gashitt
MTC-00033711
8448 Short Ridge Road
Aurora, Indiana 47001
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As a Microsoft supporter, I write you concerning the recent
settlement. After three years of negotiations, what more is there to
debate? Microsoft has agreed to make various changes in licensing,
marketing and design, and has agreed to do so under supervision. It
is time to move forward and get our technology industry back to
business.
With our economy the way it is, it makes sense to support any
advances in technology that will maintain our place in the global
market. As the IT sector is forced to sit and wait for the
settlement to be enforced, our economy is jeopardized by stagnant
growth in the technology industry. As we spend our time and money of
further litigation, others will be focusing on innovation.
Let us help move forward and get back to business. Please help
stop any further actions against this agreement. I thank you for
your support.
Sincerely,
Myron Austin
MTC-00033712
27948 Blossom Boulevard
North Olmsted. Ohio 44070
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
The settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice must be approved. I feel that this agreement
is long overdue. Microsoft and the rest of the technology industry
make up one of the fastest growing, most profitable sectors of the
U.S. economy, and this suit is detrimental to our economy. The
bottom line is that Microsoft is one of America's largest employers,
and given the current state of the economy, this settlement is
critical.
This suit should never have gotten as far as it has. Microsoft,
in my opinion, was never guilty of antitrust violations. Microsoft's
products are high quality, they arc reasonably m-iced. and they have
withstood the test of time as the best products on the market.
Without the Windows operating system we never would have had the
boom that we have experienced in the IT field. Microsoft has made
computers accessible to consumers, and I would hate to give up the
benefits and ease that I now have with my Microsoft products because
the government believes that they have become too successful.
It is clear to me that this country needs to see the end of this
suit before we can hope to recoup our financial losses. I support
the settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon as possible.
Sincerely
Jim Pellegrino
MTC-00033713
JAN-09-2002 09:02
P.01
SUSAN V.BARBA
P .0 Box 112
Long Hill Road
New Vernon. New Jersey 07976-0112
January 7, 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 believe this settlement is long
overdue and will be very beneficial to the present state of our
economy.
I feel that Microsoft has had a positive impact on the way we do
business as a nation. Microsoft has contributed to the technology
sector and has offered quality products to consumers at reasonable
prices. I was displeased to see Microsoft punished for doing its job
well. Now Microsoft will share information about the internal
interfaces of Windows with its competitors and will be monitored by
a full-time technical review committee.
I believe the decision to settle with Microsoft was a good one.
I hope to see the settlement benefit or IT sector soon
Sincerely,
Susan Barba
TOTAL P.01
MTC-00033714
JAN 09 2002 9:1l WALTER SLACK
203-637-0389
Walter Slack
[[Page 30190]]
45 Cedar Cliff Road
Riverside, CT 06878
January 8, 2OO2
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I am writing to express my displeasure with the involvement of
state officials in the recent settlement between Microsoft and the
Department of Justice. Although I am happy to see that this matter
is being settled, the concessions are too harsh and unnecessary.
I am also very upset that my state Attorney General (Michael
Blumenthal) is involved with this matter. I thought that anti-trust
was a Federal issue. My state Attorney General should be going after
drug dealer and other such criminals that are a state issue that
more directly affects my quality of life. His involvement in anti-
trust issues is just a redundancy of what the Federal Government is
doing.
Personally, I think that Mike Blumenthal just enjoys seeing his
face on national TV. I request that no further litigation is pursued
by the US DOJ and urge that local officials stay out of this
settlement altogether. Thank you for your time; please lean on the
last nine states and DC to settle, and I hope that what ultimately
occurs will be in the best interests of the American pub tic and
economy.
Sincerely,
Walter Slack
MTC-00033715
To: Attorney General
From: Biermann, Kevin
1-09-02 8:28am p.1 01 1
Communications Engineering Company, Inc.
1850 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, Iowa 52233
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
As Software Development Manager for a diversified company, I
have learned to depend on the reliability of a variety of Microsoft
software products. I am pleased that this settlement has been
achieved and that apparently there will be no further federal action
against Microsoft. For companies of our size and discipline, it is
important to work with reliable software companies like Microsoft It
would be very difficult for us, and many companies like ours, to
work around any software changes that would have inevitably happened
if this suit had continued through the federal courts.
I wanted to write to suggest that this settlement is a good one,
as Microsoft will appease its competitors by sharing key coding
information and submitting to government oversight. I hope that it
will be sustained through the review process. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Biermann
Development Manager
MTC-00033717
January 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
Fax l-202-616-9937
Dear Ms. Hesse;
I am a citizen of the United States. I work in the information
technology industry. I believe that it would be disastrous for me
should all the tools of my livelihood be owned by a single corporate
entity, no matter how well intentioned. This Is what Microsoft
intends. Their antitrust conviction indicates that Microsoft Is not
well intentioned.
I am profoundly concerned that, in the matter of US vs.
Microsoft, the penalty phase of the trial is being managed by the
convicted defendant In such ways as to increase their monopoly over
today's information technology and, even more importantly, that of
tomorrow.
The far-reaching consequences of the de facto reversal of the
anti-trust trial verdict would be difficult to overestimate. It is
no exaggeration to say that this is a matter that will impact every
life on this planet for many lifetimes to come.
It is critically important that real, far-reaching and
controlling penalties be assessed against Microsoft, Their very
settlement proposal shows that the corporation's unbridled ambitions
include actual control of every possible future application of
information technology. The tendrlis of this plan reach deeply into
matters of the defense of this country and its economic health, In
ways so insidious that they can be nothing but another Microsoft
plan for market dominance.
This time, Microsoft is clearly thinking of the big picture.
They are thinking of the entire nation and its governance. They are
thinking of the entire global economy. They want it all. Their
proposed settlement is another covert, gift-wrapped mechanism to
achieve ambitious and self-serving ends.
Microsoft is not sorry that it has performed monopolistically.
They are ceaselessly, incurably, rapaciously ambitious. They have
been found guilty; the punishment you help to assign must somehow
enforce a curb upon their avarice and ability to infiltrate the
fabric of our entire lives.
Serious penalties are called for. Constant oversight is called
for. The proposed settlement Includes neither of these elements.
I could synthesize my own arguments for your consideration, but
others, better informed and more knowledgeable, have already done
so. I will quote them extensively, and hope you will consider the
wisdom of their words.
From Dennis E. Powell of LinuxPlanet:
``The ... proposed settlement ... would grant Microsoft its
operating system monopoly-- indeed, contains wording such that
it would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that
monopoly--while saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make
it easier for people to write Windows applications, but it's by no
means required to do so. In short, the settlement is a travesty, an
ill-advised embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law
and upon all but the most twisted notion of justice,
`I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even
pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has
been found culpable, The company has, I remind the judge, already
been found in violation, and this is the penalty phase of the case,
but the settlement contains no penalties and actually advances
Microsoft's operating system monopoly. A just penalty ...
would at barest minimum Include three additional features:
Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
o The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the
proposed settlement.
o Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
I point out that If the national interest is at issue ... and as
the judge has suggested it is crucial that Microsoft's operating
system monopoly not be extended ... I quote the study released a
year ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which pointed out that the use of Microsoft
software actually poses a national security risk. In closing, I say
that all are surely in agreement that the resolution of this case Is
of great importance, not just now but for many years to come. This
suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more important to
the health of the nation than is a hasty one.''
``A settlement more along the lines of the one I propose
above would greatly benefit Windows users as well, because
competition would force Microsoft to improve the quality of its
products in areas including but not limited to reliability and
security. The settlement before the judge would benefit only
Microsoft; a sterner settlement would benefit everybody.
I ask the judge to consider that the proposed settlement hurts
each and every one of us in this nation in real, tangible ways. The
proposed settlement should be rejected as ineffectual and, again, a
tool of monopoly for Microsoft. Here are the words of a
[[Page 30191]]
California system administrator, with which I whole-heartedly agree:
``As the Network Administrator ... it is my responsibility
oversee the deployment of new technologies to our company. My
position gives me ample freedom to implement whatever software or
hardware I see necessary to keep the company network running
smoothly and to satisfy user requests. Unfortunately, though my
position may give me that freedom, the current software economy
cannot...
I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology in my
office with Open Source software, and if the software economy give
me as much freedom as my job did, I would do just that. However, the
most defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses to keep
secret-- it's network protocols, the layout of its Office
files, and the precise technology needed to migrate from their email
server. . . . I am asking the court to force Microsoft to publish
these protocols in detail.
I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as well.
Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to its
web of interdependencies. With its initiative .Net, whole portions
of the web would be cut off from non-Mlcrosoft technologies. We have
seen a glimpse of the monopolist's vision of the future with the UK
and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and accessible only with
Microsoft technology.
From a Canadian university (a nation whose economic fortunes are
inextricably tied to those of the United States) comes a very
specific analysis with which there can be no cogent argument,
because It raises the Issue of the user's right to his or her own
data: ``Because the most successful competitors in recent years
in product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto
monopoly (e.g. personal computer operating systems, Internet
browsers, and office productivity software) have arisen from the
open source software community, I believe it is of extreme
importance that any settlement protect and enhance this community's
ability to produce products that provide end-users with viable
choices.
``In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection
is not provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow
Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community's
efforts.
``The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and
licensing of intellectual property, I fear that any information
disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or
developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus
preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source
project or product, ``This settlement, if Implemented as
proposed, will serve to entrench Microsoft's monopolies further, by
allowing it to exclude the open source software community from any
future technologies and APIs it develops. As this community is
currently one of Microsoft's most serious competitors, it seems
unbelievable that the proposed settlement will aid Microsoft in
eliminating this `threat'' to their monopolies.
``As an example of the current `problem'' of
Microsoft's monopoly in the OS and office productivity
software markets, I point to the ublquitous `.doc'' file.
This one proprietary file format I believe Is one of the
cornerstones of Microsoft's OS/productivity suite monopoly.
Many people I know in the academic and business communities
regularly purchase updated versions of Microsoft Windows and
Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their correspondents send
them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for importing
these files into 3rd party applications are many; however, having
personally tried a large number of such programs, both free and
commercial, I can safely say that many work well some of the time,
none work well all of the time. The continuing cycle of forced
upgrades to maintain compatibility with correspondents lies at the
heart of Microsoft's monopoly.
``As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that
Microsoft should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the
file formats used by Its products to anyone who sends or receives
files In such formats and requests the information. ``Left
unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe In the future. It
has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is considering
moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and offlce
software. In this case, files created with licensed software and
saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to the
creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company
chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the
work I create, but that Is of little value if the only copy of the
work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have
access. ``Of course the .doc file format Is not the only
proprietary file format Microsoft products use, and the arguments
above apply equally well to other products and file formats. The
.doc format Is likely the most important however, because text-based
documents appear to be the most commonly shared and transmitted.
``A second cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly is the fact
that many computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware
without a Microsoft OS. I understand that the proposed settlement
will prevent Microsoft from entering into exclusive arrangements
with vendors, but I believe that stronger protections are required.
``If Microsoft's agreements with computer vendors forced
the vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the
Microsoft products Included, It would help consumers choose products
and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. As an example, I
point to Dell which will, as far as I can tell, not sell a computer
without a Microsoft OS and office productivity suite. If purchasers
knew that without these products they could save some number of
dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable percentage of the
computer package purchase price, they could apply pressure to the
vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive) products.
Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without
operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is
absurd, and has become Irrelevant with Microsoft's newest release of
Windows XP, which requires license activation.
``Having consumers and end-users with more information Is
clearly in the public interest. All of what is suggested here
concerns supplying information that enables computer users to make
informed decisions, and to access their own work on their own
computer, ``In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is
seriously lacking, and will, if implemented as proposed, aid
Microsoft in its efforts to hinder Its most viable competitors. Any
successful settlement must protect the rights of computer users to
choose the products they desire to access their data.''
If much of the legal profession is about finding loopholes (it
is), then accountancy is about closing them. So it's not surprising
that a certified public accountant found a glaring and terrible
loophole in the proposed settlement and argued that it should be
eliminated: ``Another issue I have with the proposed settlement
is the restrictions that are placed on the entities with which
Microsoft must share their API's In the explanations I have seen of
the proposed settlement these entitles are restricted to
`commercial'' ventures, implying for-profit status, This
is simply wrong and way too restrictive. I believe that to be truly
effective the parties with whom Microsoft should share their
API's and the like should be broadly defined, maybe something
like `any party or entity that could potentially benefit from
such information'. In other words this information should
essentially be in the public domain.''
Many of us are simply and plainly harmed by Microsoft's business
practices. From Microsoft's own back yard, Seattle, a commentator
considers the specifics of the proposed settlement. She provides a
compelling illustration of how she Is personally damaged by the M
microsoft monopoly:
``Microsoft has been determined guilty of violating anti-
trust laws and the penalty phase just seems to miss the mark. I am
hearing comments on the street that the U.S. Government is now a
wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft. I will admit that I find the
`penalties'' somewhat perplexing in that they certainly
seem to miss the mark rather completely.
``I personally think that is probably a little radical, but
then I see demo copies of Microsoft's XP operating system on
all the workbenches of my local post offices and I do wonder what is
going on here. I do not see any other vendors'' product demos
available there. (Doesn't) this seem to Indicate implicit approval
of Microsoft products and no other by a government entity?
``The following are the flaws that I see in the
`penalties'' that essentially seem to leave Microsoft
better off than they were before the trial, there is no separation
of Integrated software that harms and stifles competition to the
Microsoft operating system. Further I see no provisions for computer
manufacturers to be able to offer other and more viable operating
systems in a fair and price competitive atmosphere--essentially
nothing has changed (under the terms of the proposed settlement).
``I do not see that the proprietary protocols for the
operating system, networking and other elements are to be made
public in order
[[Page 30192]]
that others may have equal opportunity to develop applications In a
spirit of healthy competition and to encourage innovation, Microsoft
appears to be allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and
monopolistic systems that started this process. Again It appears
that nothing has changed and it will be business as usual for
Microsoft.
``In Washington State, Microsoft continues with its
obnoxious and heavy handed practices, only now In a new area. Their
handling of their Internet Service Provider (ISP) business seems to
be following the same basic marketing strategy that they used with
their operating systems. This has even been noted In the Seattle
Times newspaper, In a city where normally Microsoft can do no wrong:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm1/localnews/l34378212
awestl4mO.html
``Again, it appears to be business as usual for Microsoft.
``Thus I am perplexed at the current
``penalties'' being `imposed'' on Microsoft.
They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft to continue
In the same ways it has been and those are the very same ones that
brought this issue to the DO] In the first place. If these are
Implemented as currently stated, then fair business practices,
innovation and competition are DEAD in the computer field.
``I do use Microsoft products; a very few are reasonably
decent but I am forced to use others because the only option I have
for them is other Microsoft products. Because of this, my time is
considerably less efficiently used in repairing and working to keep
the systems going rather than accomplishing work that I need to do.
If one does not expect much from the computers running Microsoft
products then they are not the absolute worst products on the
planet, If you expect much from them and / or use them heavily then
you are going to
rather constantly ... have them fail (with resulting) loss of
time, effort and money. On days when I am working hard it is common
to have to reboot my machine to recover my working ability at least
several times. As time goes on from the initial (or subsequent
complete re-install of the operating system) the situation grows
steadily worse. The overall cost of running Microsoft products Is
Incredibly high and far higher than it ever should be were Microsoft
concerned with more than creating a market for the next version of
Its products. Bluntly, quality is not job one,
``In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any
hope of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL
penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money
that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less-than-fair
business practices ... there is some doubt as to whether that can
actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to anyone
working In the field that there is no honor or integrity in
Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for
the good of the industry, the users ... at this point In time it
becomes rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk
due to the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security
that is (an) epidemic In their products. That alternatives are few
is a direct result of the issues that DO] is supposed to be
addressing in this matter.
``I've been told that I am wasting my time here, in
that Microsoft can pay people to submit positive comments for this
business enhancing solution that has been proposed as a
`punishment'. They have done the same things in the
past; that is pretty much common knowledge. I can only hope that DO]
will prove wise, not be bought out by Microsoft and free the
Industry for the good of the consumer and the country,''
A computer professional who has a long list of
certifications--including some from Microsoft -- makes the
point that competition is the only assurance of high quality:
``Microsoft products, by virtue of being (created by) a
monopoly, have been designed without concern for security or
reliability, I can prove that the design of Microsoft products leads
to the spread of countless virii in the computer industry. They
(Microsoft products) are the perfect products to use to send
damaging virus from many groups like the terrorists from
Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt.... And do not imagine that
these places have not already done damage.
``And it is not only because Microsoft products are in such
wide use, but the real problem is that the products have been very
poorly designed. It seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job
right, so the remaining reasons why the products are so poorly
written is that there is currently no need to be `best of
breed'' when you are the only option.
'It will not be long till they (the terrorists) discover
that they can inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. All
this because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and instead of
actually writing well-designed programs, they spend all the energy
they have to simply maintain that monopoly,
``Often I give speeches to Information technology groups
that state, `Without Microsoft in the industry, we would be at
least 10 years ahead of where we are today'. But because of
the constrictive designs and monopollzing practices of Microsoft, no
possible competitive products have been able to get a start,
``As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system
called OS/2 in 1992. Only today, some 9 years later, Is Windows XP
beginning to catch up to the technical capabllity of OS/2. In fact
It still has a long way to go to catch up to OS/2 in security and
reliability. What happened? IBM could not get any hardware vendors
to carry the software because Microsoft had tied up all
manufacturers of computers to Include with each and every computer,
a copy of Windows. This in spite of the fact that many wanted to use
OS/2 instead of Windows. What happened to anyone who decided to use
OS/2 was (that) they also paid (for) and received a copy of Windows
that they did not desire.
``The only way to get the marketplace back in order is to
separate the computer hardware from the operating system. When you
go to a store to buy a computer, you should be able to buy any
computer available without having to also purchase an operating
system, That choice should be made at the time of purchase rather
than (be forced through software) included in the cost of the
computer.
``(This situation) is much akin to buying a car, and with
that car purchase also comes a coupon for gasoline from the
Microsoft Gasoline Company. We agree that the car uses gasoline, and
we all buy gasoline, but what If we prefer to buy gasoline from
Shell rather than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft Gasoline
Company? Should we not have the option of not prepaying for fuel
from the Microsoft Gas Company? ...''
From Rick Hohensee of the cLIeNUX distribution comes a
substitute remedy proposal:
``(It would be best if) the Court declares Microsoft
operating system products `criminally compromised intellectual
property'. This is a special state of copyright protection
vacancy, under which Microsoft operating system products lose their
patent and copyright protections exactly five years after their
release dates....
``First off, it has (the) one essential characteristic of
anything that will be effective upon Microsoft, simplicity. They
feed on loopholes. There are none in the above. There's nothing they
can do about the Fed not protecting the copyrights their existence
depends upon.
``There is nothing for them to cooperate with.
``This doesn't require any cooperation or good faith from
Microsoft, which is also crucial, (They may actually favor this
remedy, however.) ...
``It does actually partially break their monopoly, The AOLs
and Oracles and Rick Hohensees of the world can produce their own
alternatives to Windows, based on older versions of Windows. (I
personally have to be very well paid to look at a Windows desktop,
but distastes vary. I use Linux.)
``The focus is on the software others are dependent on,
(the) operating systems. This leaves Microsoft untouched as to
application products such as Offtce.... ``What goes in an OS,
where they expend their energies, all product design decisions and
so on remain with Microsoft. Federal micromanagement of Microsoft is
avoided, to everyone's benefit....
Another correspondent, from England, makes comments that must be
seen In the Federal Register. They neatly address further Microsoft
plans to manage national and world trade through monopolistic
practices Identical to those for which Microsoft was convicted.
``MS Is desperate to stop Linux from competing in the
client /server market by enforcing an MS client/MS server strategy.
An example of this is the recent non-standard extensions to Kerberos
so that if companies have MS clients they will find the encryption
protocols may only work properly when they're talking to MS servers,
This is to be expected from the company that continuously muddied
the waters on SMB.
``.NET Is really an extension of the same principle, though
the spinmeisters at Redmond make sickening paeans to Open Standards
with their `XML Foundations'' nonsense.
``Let me give you an example of Microsoft's
commitment to XML as an open standard for
[[Page 30193]]
data exchange--taken from the December 2001 issue of Linux User
in an interview wlth OperaSoft's Haakon Lie:
``MS office claims to support XML but it writes the XML
tags inside HTML comments so that they can not be found (by non-MS
software). Even if the software then knew how to find the XML tags
it would not know how to interpret them as the format used for the
tags is proprietary!
``I think this tells you all you need to know about
Microsoft's conversion to XML.
``What about those of us who do not live in the US?
Microsoft's policies affect the entire world--how do the rest
of us try and have a say in this? I speak as someone who lives in a
country whose government has decided to hive off the public sector
IT infrastructure lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft, and whose
leader, Tony Blair, goes weak-kneed in the presence of Bill Gates.
Britain is about to become the first reference site in the world for
.Net, if Gates gets approval from the government to roll out a
multi-billion dollar 100% MS solution for the tax authorities. In
the last month it has been announced that the National Health
Service and the Mlnlstry of Defence have signed deals to put *all*
of their desktops under one MS licensing contract. In three years
time, if they want to carry on using the software, they will have to
pay whatever amount MS demands (the joys of software rental). The
lion's share of government contracts (in pound sterling terms) have
gone to EDS, a company which makes no secret of the fact that it is
little more than a value added reseller for Microsoft (all of EDS's
costly `solutions'' are 100% MS).''
Please consider that the U.S. government has made much of
globalization. It is a good idea for the government to understand
that in cases such as this one, which have a global impact, this
means responsibility for corporate behavior wlthln the boundaries of
the United States. Additionally, parties injured by the actions of
American companies, which actions took place In the U.S., have
standing by every standard I can find.
Finally, I will quote another wise man, a Florldlan with more
intensive software industry experience than mine, who speaks to the
point of freedom of choice for the consumer: ``I am a Software
Developer who has worked In the industry for almost 10 years. I have
used many Microsoft products, and have enjoyed the increasing
ablllties of software systems developed by Mlcrosoft. I also enjoy
using other operating systems, but as a software developer, I have
to follow market trends to keep myself fed--regardless of the
market trends.
``However, it is apparent to any casual software user that
Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web
Browser market. It is more apparent to a software developer who
works within Microsoft operatlng systems. The technical aspects
involved in the operatlng system itself (speclflcally, development
with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of `.Net''
technology) marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so)
to Internet Explorer, and the operating system. ``Furthermore,
speclflc training programs such as MCSE (Mlcrosoft Certified
Software Englneer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certlfled Solution Developer)
are geared towards maintaining the Internet Browser market by way of
gearing Mlcrosoft Cettifled individuals (who pay for courses and
tests!) to use only Microsoft Products.
``Operating Systems.
``Software.
``Software Development.
``In an Internet enabled world, these are the tools for
maintaining a monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.
``One could argue that nobody else has attempted these
things on the level that Microsoft Inc. has, Yet that is my point.
Nobody should. Freedom of Choice.
``The newer versions of Windows have the Internet
technologies wrapped in them. This IS an obvious attempt to matntain
a monopoly on the Internet Browser market. They may be able to prove
that they did not do it `on purpose', but they have done
it. If I run over a man wlth my car, and I broke a traffic law while
doing so, the offense is manslaughter. It I planned to do it
(premedltated), it's Murder 1. The fact remains that a man would be
dead.
``Odds are that when this is read, It will be read on a
Windows NT 4.0 machine. Why? Because the U.S. Government has
certified Windows NT 4.0 as a secure operating system, Furthermore,
this mail message will probably be read through another one of
Microsoft's applications.
``The US. Government, for lack of any other
`secure'' operating system, has gone with the highest
bidder. Nell Armstrong quipped about going to the moon on everything
built by the lowest bidder, and here the United States states that
we'll go with the ONLY software manufacturer that creates an
operating system. This seems counterintultive. Freedom of Choice. If
you need more proof than the software that the reader of this
document Is using, and my ability to predict that, I'm at a loss.
``These two polnts highlight the fact that the average
American consumer is paying more than once for the same
software--flrst as consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks
charge twice for ATM withdrawals, we cringe and say that it may be
legal, but it Is obviously immoral. Given, the hardware manufacturer
Is hiding the price of the operating system on new computer systems,
the fact remains the same.
``This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse In the
interest of the people of the United States (and the rest of the
world!) should contain the following items:
``(1) Microsoft products--or products of any software
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer
vendors. Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software
manufacturers then also have a chance to compete. Installation of
the USER SELECTED software can remain free.
``(2) Any Microsoft networklng protocols must be publlshed
in full and approved by an independent network protocol body. This
would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the
Internet.
``(3) The speclflcations of Microsoft's past, present and
future document and network formats must be made public, so that
documents created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs
from other makers, on Microsoft's AND other operating systems. Thls
is in addltion to opening the Wlndows Application Program Interface
(`Windows API', the set of ``hooks'' that
allow other parties to write applications for Windows operating
systems), which is already part of the proposed settlement.
``(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software
Engineering Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well
as insight into their development process for Operating Systems. SE1
level 3 is required by the United States Government for software
companies that supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999).
This certification was created to protect the government from
software manufacturers that had no software development process.
This same certification should protect the average consumer, AND
insight into the Software Development Process for creation of their
operating systems would glve software manufacturers a chance to keep
up with Microsoft,
``(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems
MUST be made public prior to the release of the operating system by
a minimum of 6 months. This Is VERY important when dealing with
future web enabled embedded devices. This is also very important to
the average consumer--they get a better product!
``This judgment is not only of Import to the United States,
where It is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue,
since the monopoly itself extends to ali corners of the world,
Judgment In this case MUST be fair to the consumer, because future
cases along these lines will look toward this precedent. And, in
future, it may not be as domestic an Issue. ``Furthermore, if
Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this would be seen as a
security issue. It should be seen this way despite the fact that
Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer, (and) for the SAME
reasons.
``Please realize that the implications In an Internet based
society reach further than the next few years, They affect society
ad inflnitum.''
Please do not allow this travesty of a negotiated settlement to
warp this nation's future.
Please do not allow the tools of production to remain in a
single palr of grasping corporate hands.
Thank you for your consideration. Please help the judge to make
careful and considered choices. The task before you now Is to rein
In this corporate megalith and constrain its future behavior into
conformity with the letter and spirit of the law. The richest must
not be allowed to legislate for all of us, with no end other than
their further enrichment,
That isn't justice.
Thomas M, Barclay
01/09/02
MTC-00033718
Janice M. Yahr, CPA
3505 Veterans Memorial Highway
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7613
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
[[Page 30194]]
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am a concerned citizen writing you regarding the recent
Microsoft settlement. After three years of delays in this well
thought out, and well monitored negotiation process, it seems
ridiculous to hold up these terms any longer. The terms should now
speak for themselves, and be allowed to pull together the IT sector
to function as a team.
Not only has Microsoft agreed to rework licensing and marketing
agreements, but also has agreed to design future versions of Windows
to allow for easier installation of non-Microsoft software. They
have also agreed to make these changes while being monitored by a
committee to make sure that they follow procedure. With all of the
concessions made by Microsoft, it is evident that they were acting
in the best interest of the IT sector as a whole. This is one of the
prime reasons why we should be supporting our technology industry by
supporting this settlement.
Moving forward with this settlement can only be helpful to
consumers, the technology industry, and our economy as a whole. Let
us help support our economy at this time and stop any further action
against this settlement. I thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Janice M. Yahr
MTC-00033719
Jacques Germans
67--59 214 Street
Bayside, NY 11364
718 224 8477 o fax: 503 210 1575 o e-mail
[email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I
do not believe protracted litigation, or the imposition of
punishment beyond the terms of the agreement, such as breaking up
the Microsoft Corporation, will serve the best interests of anyone.
As a computer consultant. I believe open competition is
beneficial to consumers, and to our economy as a whole. Microsoft
has been a fierce competitor in the market place, and has prospered
as a result. This has been good for consumers. However, if Microsoft
violated any antitrust lams in their business practices, that
behavior should be rectified. So long as the settlement agreement
provisions rectify any actions that violate the laws, the settlement
agreement should be approved, and the litigation should end. I
believe the settlement agreement contains such provisions.
Specifically, the creation of a three person technical committee to
monitor Microsoft's business practices, and Microsoft's agreement to
share internal operating information with its competitors, will go
far in ensuring compliance with antitrust laws.
I urge you to support the settlement agreement. In these trying
economic times? it is important for Microsoft. and the computer
industry as a whole, be free to focus on business, rather than
lawsuits.
Sincerely,
MTC-00033720
Konard 0. Hauffe, DDS
Post office Box 543
717 Main Avenue
Brookings, SD 57104
605-692-4715 Ofnce/605-692-2427 Fax
January 2,2002
Renata Hesse-bsTrial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Renata Hesse:
For the past couple years, I have been very concerned that the
anti-trust suit against Microsoft Corporation will slow down the
progress Windows has brought to home users and businesses.
I have a dental practice in eastern South Dakota and I look
forward to the development of a Windows based system in the near
future to replace the DOS program my office has used. However, I
believe if the government continues this case against Microsoft, it
will retard the kinds of innovations which would benefit clients
like me and others. I also believe that it would be harmful to
creativity if this case results in government playing a role which
slows down progress and makes companies less apt to develop new
products and market them. I think the government should avoid
micromanaging companies in the information technologies industry.
Beyond the government intrusion issue, what is disconcerting in
this court action is the fact that Microsoft's actions have not been
found to be ham&l to consumers. I realize there are additional
issues in this case, but it is also my understanding that those
issues have been addressed in the settlement awement.
I am sending this Ietter in the public comment phase of this
process to let you know that I support the settlement agreement and
wish to see an end to this case. I also applaud the settlement's
provisions which will bring new technologies to schools where
poverty has prevented children from competing educationally.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Dr, Konarcd 0. Hauffe
MTC-00033721
Mark Magnuson
27185 Pine Circle
Harrisburg, South Dakota 67032
December 3 1,200l
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
Dear Rcnata Hesse:
I was extremely pleased at the initial news of a settlement
between the US. Justice Department and the Microsoft Corporation
over the anti-trust suit brought by the Justice Department and
various states'' attorneys generaI. However, I became concerned
when I heard that halfof the states in the suit want to keep up the
fight in the courts, and that it was also clear that they were being
cheered on my Microsoft's competitors, I hope that common sense and
fairness will prevail and that this four-year-old, very expensive
suit will be ahowed to finally settle. I support the settlement. As
a businessman in southeastern South Dakota, I know that business
ru.tis'on Microsoft's Windows programs. Because the company has
produced versa$)e, uncomplicated and affordable software that offers
the best innovations, large and 4mall businesses have been enabled
to compete with access to the information highway. It certainly has
enabled entrepreneurs to enter the business world at the
sa.rne``technica.l level of older firms, and that has been a
major cornerstone for our state's economy.
From news stories, I have learned that the proposed settlement
uses a means test to have Microsoft outfit the most economically
needy schools and students with the tools they need to use the
internet, The intemct is the great equalizer in this age, and it is
essential as learning to read and perform math to the success of
each student. The settlement also resolves the issues which the
courts decided needed to be resolved. I can't think what positive
purpose can be served if Microsoft's antagonists are allowed to kill
this settlement and drag this issue along for another year or two,
because it is doubtful the continuation of this case will produce
new findings of my substance.
As one who uses Windows in my work and at home, I am a satisfied
customer+ and I don't know any business people in the Sioux Falls
region who have a beef with the quality of the software supplied by
Microsoft. Spending more time and taxes on this case, I believe,
would truly be a waste. Please aIlow this settlement to stand.
Thank you.
Mark Magnuson
MTC-00033722
Georgia Hanson
551 N. Mable Avenue--Sioux Falls, SD 57103
December 31, 2001
Ranata Heese, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 2053C
Dear Renata:
Ths recently achieved settlement on U.S. vs. Microsoft will
bring a wonderful opportunity to bridge the digital divide which
exists for children in several counties of my state. I want you to
know that South Dakota has had three of the nation's most
impoverished counties, according to the Census Bureau, which are
located on Indian Reservations. However, poverty in South Dakota is
found in non-Indian counties where children live in farms, ranches
and rural communities. Thanks to this settlement, these children
won't have to stand last in line for this fundamentally important
educational tool.
As a consultant and businesswoman, I am pleased that this
settlement offers the hope that Microsoft will be able to continue
its good work for new software innovations.
[[Page 30195]]
However, the most important benefit for our nation's economy rests
with the conclusion of a court case which has certainly run its
course. I was very pleased that the federal government and half of
the states involved in the case reached a settlement in an anti-
trust case where no harm to consumers was established. I am also
very concerned about the effect on our economy and on the stability
of the information technologies sector of our economy if this
settlement is abandoned. Further compromises and penalties would
have a chilling effect on any company's ability to become as
innovative and productively assertive as Microsoft has been in its
drive to be the most successful software developer in the world.
It is clear that the critical issues in the case have been
resolved. I hope for the sake of this important industry that the
last word has been said and that conusumers will continue to benefit
from more innovations and advancements in technology.
Sincerely,
Georgia Hansen
MTC-00033723
Rick Bauermeister, Director of Business Development
Market Solutions Group, Inc.
300 N. Dakota Avenue, Sioux Falls, DD 57184
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
I am very pleased to submit my letter of support for the
settlement under consideration in the U.S v. Microsoft anti-trust
case. I have foIloved this issue through the news media, and I
believe the settlcment is fair and completely resolves the issues
which were upheld by the courts.
Additionally, I am very, very pleased to see this case resolved
after all of the time and financial resources which were invested
thus far. It would be extremely unfortunate if this issue were to
allow to linger and devour more time and money, nor to mention the
damage done to the Microsoft Corporation to continue defending
itself and disrupting its services as the world's leader in the
development and sales of affordable, easy-to-use software. The stock
market reports show thut while many sectors in economy have been
sagging from the economic recession, Microsoft has shown remarkable
resiliency.
As a businessman whose livelihood has depended on advances in
information technology, I've paid attention to how the dynamic
advances created by Microsoft has not only vastly improved office
system functions, but also how these advances have become more and
more accessible and affordable to consumers. I think that consumers
and our nation's economy have been the ultimate winner in
Microsoft's quest to provide the best possible technological support
to computer users.
The settlecment which is being considered is a huge benefit for
underprivileged children and school systems. But it is also the best
solution for our nation's economy, consumers, and the entire
information technology industry. I strongly recommend that this
settlement is allowed to be enacted and that this controversy is
finished once and for all. I thank you very much for your attention
to my letter.
With best regards,
Rick Bauermeister
MTC-00033724
January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse
Thank you for this opportunity to offer my views on the proposed
settlement on the anti-trust case, U.S. VS. Microsoft Corporation. I
am In full support of the settlement for these reasons:
o The settlement, when enacted, will put an end to a court
action which has dragged along for four years and has cost our
federal government a great deal of money.
o The benefits from the settlement will be highly fruitful for
children, in our nation who most need access to information
technologies, but who have been shut out because of economic
circumstances.
o The conclusion of this case will stop dragging down Microsoft
Corporation's resources and attention from the excellent job it has
done to provide the highly usable and affordable software systems in
the homes and offices of Americans.
+ The Conclusion of this case will also end the threat of
bringing down a corporation that has proven itself as being
essentlal to the overall strength of America's economy.
Microsoft has been a very supportive partner In the development
of Information technologies in my home state of South Dakota. It
submltted a S760,OOO matching grant to glve a significant boost to
the state government's effort to make the Internet ubiquitous to
South Dakotans, and to increase opportunities for our state economy.
Personally, I have frequently wondered why thls antl-trust case
was Initiated, because the case has not succeeded In proving that
Microsoft Corporation has adversely affected consumers, I thlnk the
settlement Is very, very generous, and that if there were Issues
which needed to be decided in this court process, they are now
resolved.
Please do what you can to expedite this process and bring a fair
conclusion to this case by allowing the settlement to be enacted.
sincerely,
Edward T. Clark, M.D.
4708 S. Wlldwood Circle
Sioux Falls, SD 57105
MTC-00033725
Paul McSweeney
Dakota Networks, Inc.
Phone: 605-331-6973 Fax: 605-332-8722
E-mail: paulmac@dakdta-networkscorn
December 29, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept. Of Justice
601 D Street NW / Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Renata:
My letter is intended to provide commentary to voice my support
for the proposed settlement in U.S. vs. Microsoft. My firm supplies
software and IT support systems to many clients throughout the
nation. As one who works with clients to set up office systems, I am
very concerned about the net effect to the entire IT industry if
this settlement is not enacted and the case is allowed to continue a
course to more severe penalties and regulations on the development
of new technologies.
The settlement reached by the Justice Department and nine of the
states involved in the case probably does not make anyone entirely
happy, but it includes something for everyone. Best of all, however,
is the settlement will bring children and schools in economically
stressed areas of our nation into the world of the internet. It also
addresses the issues which the court process decided were the
essential issues to be resolved.
I have relocated from Massachusetts to South Dakota. census
records have shown consistently that South Dakota is home to the
three pooreet counties in the United States. They are located on
Indian reservations. While the state has done much to wire public
schools for the internet and to prepare children for the information
age, I believe the settlement will provide a huge leap forward for
Indian children through the gifts of software and hardware involved
in the settlement. I appreciate your attention to my letter. I hope
this settlement ia enacted so that the IT industry can move forward.
Sincerely,
Paul McSweenney
MTC-00033726
MARY ELIZABETH JONES, ED.D.
48043 Snowbird Circle
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57lO8
605-3674293 Office--6050743-2771 Residence
December 26,200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
I appreciate the opportunity to state my support for the
sottloment agreement in U.S. v. Microsoft because of the tremendous
benefit it offers to dislldvantaged children through their education
system, and because it finally brings to rest a court action which
has absorbed enough time and resources firom our government and from
a corporation which is vital to our nation's troubled economy. I
have workod for many years in South Dakota as a mental therapist and
in education, and I agree with the view that this settlement will
repair what is known as ```the digital divide''
which exists among economic classes in our society, and it seeks to
remedy the issues which have been found to be valid thus far in the
court process.
It is my understanding that the purpose of anti-trust laws and
processes is to protect consumers. However, I think it needs to be
clearly underscored in the consideration of
[[Page 30196]]
this settlement that none of the Microsoft Corporation's
actions have been found to havo harmed American consumers. Frankly,
it appears to many of us that those who wish to jettison this
valuable settlement and continue pursuing an even more severe
victory are actually seeking to tear down
Microsoft's earned place as a leader in the information
technologies industry. If such a severe victory is achieved, I
believe the damage in the long-term will be against the entire
information technologies industry and to the American economy.
Microsoft Corporation is an important part of America's economic
muscle and it is obvious to the casual observer that its marketplace
competitors are working diligently to weaken the industry leader
with tho hope that a short-term gain will result. I think it is
worth noting that while there are nine states which seek to prolong
this issue beyond its four-year run in the process, nine other
states and the U.S. Department of Justice have decided this issue
should be settled now. It would be best for this nation's economy
and the industry to settle this issue with this fair settlement and
move ahead.
Thank you very much for considering my thoughts on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Jones
MTC-00033727
THE MAIN STREET PUB JBHICA RADSAN
11 W. Main, Vermillion, SD 57069
Phone: 6054BU-5261
December 31, 2001
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW \ Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
My letter for the public commentary phase of the U.S. v.
Microsoft antitrust case seeks to demonstrate my support in favor of
the settlement agreement which was reached between Microsoft
Corporation and the United States Justice Deparmsnt.
I gladly applaud the Justice Department for reaching this
agreement because the settlement will bring to an end a protracted
and expensive case which has resolved the issues which the court has
upheld as valid concerns.
I think the merits of the settlement agreement and the
conclusions reached therein can be beneficial to the future of
software development in our nation. On the other hand, I am very
wary of efforts by some interests to undermine this fair and just
settlement and the motivations behind those efforts.
What is most noteworthy to me is that this case did not find
that Microsoft had harmed consumers. This, fact should give pause to
those who wish to continue spending resources to continue this case
beyond what is reasonable.
As a businesswoman, I am pleased with the high value and
affordable cost of Microsoft's products. I believe the corporation
has done much to make information technologies handily available and
affordable to millions of Americans. As one of the most succeesful
corporations in America, Microsoft ia a pillar in America's economy
and it has been a reliable partner in business development.
Anyone can see that the information technologies industry is a
highly competitive industry, and that Microsoft's position as the
leader has been fought against some very tough opposition. This
competition keeps Microsoft on its toes to out-create its
competitors, and I believe Microsoft'a meet productive and
innovative days are yet to come as long as this case does not result
in over-regulation and penalties which will give competitors an
unearned advantage.
I have faith in our justice system that this settlement
agreement will be allowed to proceed and its provisions, will be
helpful-to consumers. Thank you for reviewing my words of
encouragement to put this agreement to work for a more Secure
industry and economy.
Very truly yours,
Jessica R. Radigan
MTC-00033729
From John & Edie Reynolds to 787-5765
Edie P. Reynolds
3709 Marlin Ct.
Raleigh. NC 27604
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
Dear Ms. Hesse,
It is my belief that approving the settlement of the Microsoft
case now will benefit the United States tremendously. It's time to
get the economy moving again, and settling this suit will provide
the perfect shot in the arm for the ailing American economy. The
date of the beginning of the stock market's collapse can be traced
to the frederal government's decision to break up Microsoft,
according the Rush Limbaugh radio show last Tuesday, January 15,
2001. Investor confidence was destroyed by news that the market
leader in the technology sector of our economy was due to be
crippled by a harsh remedy to the antitrust case. We've got to work
to bring that confidence back. This is the time to put the interests
of working Americans ahead of the interests of politicians,
corporate executives and trial attorneys. We need to focus on the
future, not the past. Both parties have agreed to abide by the terms
of this landmark settlement. Let's accept the resolution they have
reached in the matter!
I request that Judge Kollar Kotally approve the proposed
settlement. Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Edie P. Reynolds
MTC-00033730
Wake Forest--Chamber of Commerce
January 15, 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:
Please register my comments under the summary, ``Let's end
the Microsoft lawsuit while both parties agree.'' This lawsuit
has dragged on for years, and has cost American taxpayers over $30
million to prosecute. Enough already! There is absolutely no reason
to continue the suit any longer. I hope that the Department of
Justice will take the same position as Microsoft and the federal
prosecutors in this case: let's approve the settlement and move on.
Let's examine the facts in this case with regard to the American
economy and economic development. First of all, we're in a
recession. This recession has driven up the unemployment rate and
driven down the value of stocks. Thus, many Americans have lost
their jobs, and many of those who still have employment have seen
their savings devalued, Not good, right?
Second, Microsoft is recognized innovative leader in American
business technology. In fact, virtually every business that I've
recruited to Wake Forest uses Microsoft products in some form or
another. They rely on Microsoft to develop new products on a
perpetual basis in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of business. Yet, Microsoft has been forced to spend untold millions
of dollars on legal defense instead of research and development.
Additionally, the legal battle has undoubtedly cast doubt in
Microsoft's executives'' minds as to whether they can legally
introduce innovative products without being sued. Which brings me to
my final point. The American entrepreneurial spirit is our singular
most valuable asset If creative American business leaders are
intimidated to the extent that they stop creating efficient business
products for the rest of us to enjoy, then we have in effect killed
the American entrepreneurial spirit. We don't want that, do we?
I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the settlement
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Barrington
Economic Development Director
Wake Forest, North Carolina
350 South White Street
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Tel. 919-556-1519
Fax 919-556-8570
Web: www.wakeforestna.com
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00033731
From: Fax No.: Jul. 21 2001 02:32AM P4
Patrick T. McHenry
Former Special Assistant to the Secretary
United States Department of Labor
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms Hesse,
As a former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Labor, I am very aware of the challenges
government faces in trying deal effectively with American businesses
and the American workforce. One cause of unemployment for
[[Page 30197]]
the American workforce is the threat and actual filing of lawsuites
against which American business must defend itself.
The federal government's case against Microsoft should be ended
at this point in time. Both parties have agreed to a settlement.
This settlement would mean the end of costly litigation for
Microsoft. That's good news for American workers who have lost their
jobs in this recession. You see, the less resources that Microsoft
and other major corporate leaders have to invest in legal defense,
the more funds they have available for research, development and,
above all, job creation. Many people in the region in which I reside
have lost their jobs. Many families are hurting. At this crucial
stage in both our local and national economy, it is imperative that
business and government work together. The perception that business
and government have a constructive partnership will encourage
investment and foster innovation among American industry.
These two components mean more jobs for American workers. Judge
Kollar- Kotelly should approve the Microsoft settlement, for
American workers'' sake.
Sincerely,
Patrick T. McHenry
1426 Buckingham Avenue--Gastonia, NC 28054
MTC-00033732
Edge, Inc.
100 Citrieon Ct
Cary, NC 27511
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse,
As the President and CEO of Edge, Inc., the Chairman of the
Board of Unum Telecommunications, the Vice President of Sales for
Armstrong Moving and Storage Company and a member of the National
Board of the Paget Foundation, I have more than a little experience
in the realm of business and industry, particularly in the area of
sales and marketing. Each of the enterprises I work to build would
be nothing if not for the positive public perception built by sales
and marketing.
Which brings me to my main point: lawsuits are bad for sales and
marketing. Lawsuits make investors skittish, customers wary and
employees uncertain. No matter how a company tries to present
positive image, a perception will exist that a company has behaved
improperly and is under intense scrutiny. No one wants to be
scrutinized: not investors, not customers and certainly not
employees.
Microsoft has developed many of the products that make business
efficient. Their success has encouraged investment not only in
Microsoft, but throughout the entire tech sector. Customers have
included virtually all segments of the American populace, from Wall
Street to Main Street, from CEOs to homemakers. Microsoft employees
have developed these revolutionary products that previous
generations could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
All of these components of Microsoft's success have been put at
risk by the antitrust suit against Microsoft. Because the economy is
in bad shape, we must put this matter behind us. Microsoft and the
federal government have reached a settlement agreement. Let's end
this saga and allow Microsoft to go on leading American
entrepreneurs in the twenty-first century.
I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves this settlement.
Regards,
Edward Grieve
MTC-00033733
482 TANNER WAY
LANSDALE, PENNA. 19446
JANUARY 7, 2002
ATTORNEY GENERA JOHN ASHCROFT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N-W
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am writing to express my opinion and beliefs on the recent
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of
Justice. I support the settlement 100%, but I am pessimistic about
its passage and implementation. First off, I believe that settlement
was not unreasonable. but the nine states in opposition are just
grandstanding for their own political agendas. Microsoft is getting
a raw deal and I think the matter will ultimately end up in the
Supreme Court.
That is a pity, because the settlement is rather fair. and is
the best that anyt ratlonal person could expect. The settlement
addresses the original complaints about Microsoft, and now they have
been addressed by everything from barriers against retaliation for
developing competing software to fixed licensing prices and redesign
of Windows XP.
At any rate, the recession has had a devastating effect on state
budgets and the federal budget., and it is important that the
technology industry be allowed to concentrate on business now Thank
you for your time.
Sincerely,
CC: Senator Rick Santorum
MTC-00033734
PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH
JOSEPH R. BIDEN. JR., DELAWARE
STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA
HERBERT KOHL, WISCONSIN
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
RUSSELL D FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN
JON KYL, ARIZONA
CHARLES E. SHUMER, NEW YORK
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS
JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA
MARIA CANTWELL, WASHINGTON
SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA
MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
325 7th Street NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms Hesse,
We enclose the hearing record from the Judiciary Committee's
December 12, 2001 hearing, ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look
to the Future,'' as a public comment pursuant to the Tunney
Act's public comment provision, 15 U.S.C 16(d), for the
Department's or the Court's use as it deems appropriate.
Sincerely,
PATRICK J. LEAHY
Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH
Ranking Republican Member
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
DOCUMENTS FROM THE DECEMBER 12, 2001 HEARING ON ``THE
MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Witness List
2. Hearing Transcript
3. Member Statements
Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Jeff Sessions
4. Witness Statements
Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, U.S. Department of
Justice
Jay L. Himes, Office of the Attorney General, New York
Charles F. Rule, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation
Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School
Dr. Mark N. Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
Jonathan Zuck, Association for Competitive Technology
Matthew Szulick, Red Hat, Inc.
Mitchell E. Kertzman, Liberate Technologies
5. Written Statements Submitted for the Record
Ralph Nader and James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
Mark Havlicek, Digital Data Resources, Inc.
Jerry Hilburn, Catfish Software, Inc.
Lars H. Liebeler, Esq., Computing Technology Industry
Association
Dave Baker, EarthLink, Inc.
6. Additional Materials Submitted for the Record
Proposed Final Judgement in U.S. v. Microsoft
News Statement of Citizens Against Government Waste
Letter from Senator Orrin G. Hatch to Assistant Attorney General
Charles A. James
Letter from Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James to
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Letter from Robert H. Bork to Senators Patrick J. Leahy and
Orrin G. Hatch
[[Page 30198]]
Letter from James L. Barksdale to Senators Patrick J. Leahy and
Orrin G. Hatch
Letter from Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell to Mr.
Steven A. Ballmer
7. Written Questions
Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Mike DeWine
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Mitch McConnell
8. Answers to Written Questions
Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James
Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School
Mitchell Kertzman, Liberate Technologies
Matthew Szulik, Red Hat, Inc.
Charles F. Rule, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation
Jonathan Zuck, Association for Competitive Technology
Jay L. Himes, Office of the Attorney General, New York
[As of 1/28/02, the Committee has not received answers to
written questions from Dr. Cooper]
Witness List
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
10:00 a.m.
106 Dirksen Senate Office Building
PANEL I
The Honorable Charles A. James
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
PANEL II
Jay Himes
Chief, Antitrust Bureau Office of the New York State Attorney
General, New York, NY
Charles F. Rule
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Counsel to
Microsoft Corporation, Washington, DC
PANEL III
Professor Lawrence Lessig, Esq.
Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA
Mark N. Cooper, Ph.D.
Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America,
Washington, DC
Jonathan Zuck
President, Association of Competitive Technology, Washington, DC
Matthew J. Szulik
President and Chief Executive Officer, Red Hat, Inc., Durham, NC
Mitchell E. Kertzman
President and CEO, Liberate Technologies, San Carlos, CA
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Washington, DC
December 12, 2001
CONTENTS STATEMENT OF:
Hon Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2001
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, chairman
of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Cantwell, Hatch, Kyl, 11 DeWine,
Sessions, and McConnell.
The Chairman. Good morning. I just want to do a little
housekeeping here. I want to make sure the chairman and ranking
member of the Antitrust Subcommittee are here, Senator Kohl and
Senator DeWine, both of whom have done a superb job for years in
handling antitrust matters.
I told Senator DeWine earlier, and this will probably cause a
recall petition from the Republican Party in Ohio, what a terrific
job he did as chairman and then what a terrific job Senator Kohl has
done as chairman on antitrust matters, and pointing out that they
are issues of great complexity and great importance to everybody
here in the Senate.
I have looked at the proposed settlement the Department of
Justice and nine States have transmitted to the district court that
is a plan for the conclusion of what has been really landmark
antitrust litigation. But now it has got to pass the legal test set
out in the Tunney Act if it is going to gain court approval, and
that test is both simple and broad. It requires an evaluation of
whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest.
There is significant difference of opinion over how well the
proposed settlement passes this legal test. In fact, the States
participating in the litigation against Microsoft are evenly split.
Nine States joined in the 11 proposed settlement and nine non-
settling States presented the court with an alternative remedy.
As the courts wrangle with the technical and complex legal
issues at stake in this case, this committee is conducting hearings
to educate ourselves, but also to educate the public about what this
proposed settlement really means for our high-tech industry and for
all of us who use computers at work and at school and at home.
Scrutiny of the proposed settlement by this committee during the
course of the Tunney Act proceeding is particularly important. The
focus of our hearing today is to examine whether the proposed
settlement is good public policy and not to go into the legal
technicalities. The questions raised here and views expressed may
help inform the court. I plan, with Senator Hatch, to forward to the
court the record of this hearing for consideration as the courts
goes about the difficult task of completing the Tunney Act
proceedings and the remedy sought by the non-settling States.
I am especially concerned that the district court take the
opportunity seriously to consider the remedy proposal of the non-
settling States, and to consider it before she makes her final
determination on the other parties'' proposed settlement. The
insights of the other participants in this complicated and hard-
fought case are going to be valuable additions to the comments
received in the Tunney Act proceeding. I would hope they would help
inform the evaluation whether the settlement is in the public
interest, a matter which for many people is still an open question.
The effects of this case extend beyond simply the choices
available in the software marketplace. The United States has long
been the world leader in bringing innovative solutions to software
problems, in creating new tools and applications for use on
computers and the Web, and in driving forward the flow of capital
into these new and rapidly growing sectors of the economy.
This creativity is not limited just to Silicon Valley. I think
of my own home area, Burlington, Vermont. It ranks seventh in the
Nation in terms of patent filings. Burlington is 38,000 people and
it is in a county of about 130,000 people. This is not per-capita;
this is actual filings--seventh in the Nation.
Whether the settlement proposal will help or hinder this process
and whether the high-tech industries will play the important role
they should in our Nation's economy is a larger issue behind the
immediate effects of this proposal.
With that in mind, I intend to ask the representatives of the
settling parties how their resolution of this conflict will serve
the ends that the antitrust laws require. Our courts have developed
a test for determining the effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman
Act case. The remedy must end the anticompetitive practices, it must
deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must
ensure that illegality never recurs. The Tunney Act also requires
that any settlement of such a case serve the public interest.
Now, these are all high standards, but they are reasonable ones
and people have dealt with them for years. In this case, the DC
Circuit, sitting en banc and writing unanimously, found that
Microsoft had engaged in serious exclusionary practices, to the
detriment of their competitors, and thus to all consumers. So we
have to satisfy ourselves that these matters have been addressed and
redressed, or if they have not, why not.
I have noted my concern that the procedural posture of this case
not jeopardize the opportunity of the non-settling States to have
their day in court, and not deprive the district court of the value
of their views on appropriate remedies in a timely fashion.
In addition, I have two basic areas of concern about the
proposed settlement. First, I find many of the terms of the
settlement to be either confusingly vague, subject to manipulation,
or, worse, both. Mr. Rule raised an important and memorable point
when he last testified before this committee in 1997 during the very
important series of hearings that were convened by Senator Hatch on
competition in the digital age, hearings that helped shape a lot of
thinking in the Senate.
Testifying about the first Microsoft-Justice Department consent
decree, Mr. Rule said,
[[Page 30199]]
``Ambiguities in decrees are typically resolved against the
Government. In addition, the Government's case must rise or fall on
the language of the decree; the Government cannot fall back on some
purported `spirit'' or `purpose'' of the
decree to justify an interpretation that is not clearly supported by
the language.'' So we take seriously such counsel. We would
worry if ambiguity in the proposed settlement would jeopardize its
enforcement.
Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described
in the proposed decree lacks the power and the timeliness necessary
to inspire confidence in its effectiveness. Particularly in light of
the absence of any requirement that the decree be read in broad
remedial terms, it is especially important that we inquire into the
likely operation of the proposed enforcement scheme and its
effectiveness.
Any lawyer who has litigated cases--and, Mr. James, that
would certainly include you--and any business person knows how
distracting litigation of this magnitude can be. We all appreciate
the value that reaching an appropriate settlement can have not only
for the parties, but also for consumers who are harmed by
anticompetitive conduct, and the economy.
I am the first one to say we would like some finality so that
everybody involved, all parties, can know what the standards are and
all consumers can know what they are. Because of that, I don't
come to this hearing pre-judging the merits of this proposed
settlement, but instead as one who is ready to embrace a good
settlement that puts an end to the merry-go-round of Microsoft
litigation over consent decrees. The serious questions that have
been raised about the scope, enforceability and effectiveness of
this proposed settlement leave me concerned that if it is approved
in its current form, it may simply be an invitation for the next
chapter of litigation.
I want an end to this thing. I think everybody wants an end to
it, but we want an end to it where we know what the rules are going
to be. If we don't know what the rules are going to be, as sure as
the sun rising in the east we are going to face these issues again.
On this point, I share the concern of Judge Robert Bork, who warns
in his written submission that the proposed settlement
``contains so many ambiguities and loopholes as to make it
unenforceable and likely to guarantee years of additional
litigation.
So I look forward to hearing from the Department of Justice and
the other witnesses here. I will put into the record a series of
letters: one, a letter to myself and Senator Hatch from James
Barksdale; another, a letter to Assistant Attorney General James
from Senator Hatch; a letter from Senator Hatch from Assistant
Attorney General James; letters to myself and Senator Hatch from
Robert Bork; a letter to myself from Ralph Nader, with two
enclosures; written testimony of Catfish Software, Inc; and written
testimony of Mark Havlicek of Digital Data Resources, Inc.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Chairman. I yield to Senator Hatch, who did such superb
hearings on this whole issue earlier. Senator Hatch. Well, thank
you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, We conducted a series of hearings,
as you have mentioned, in this committee in 1997 and 1998 to examine
the policy implications of the competitive landscape of the then
burgeoning high-tech economy and industry, which was about to
explode with the advent of the Internet.
Those hearings focused on competition in the industry, in
general, and more specifically complaints that Microsoft had been
engaged in anticompetitive behavior that threatened competition and
innovation, to the detriment of consumers. Our goal was, and I
believe today is to determine how best to preserve competition and
foster innovation in the high-technology industry.
Although the committee and I as its chairman was then criticized
by some, I strongly believed then and continue to believe now that
in a robust economy involving new technologies, effective antitrust
enforcement today would prevent the need for heavy-handed Government
regulation of business tomorrow.
My interest in the competitive marketplace in the high-
technology industry was animated by my strong opposition to
regulation of the industry, whether by government or by one or few
companies. As we may remember, the hearings before the Judiciary
Committee developed an extensive record of Microsoft's conduct and
evidenced various efforts by the company to maintain and extend its
operating system monopoly. These findings, I would note, were
reaffirmed by a unanimous and ideologically diverse Court of
Appeals. The Microsoft case and its ultimate resolution present one
of the most important developments in antitrust law in recent
history, certainly in my memory.
As I have emphasized before, having a monopoly is not illegal
under our laws. In fact, in a successful capitalistic system,
striving to be one should be encouraged, as a matter of fact.
However, anticompetitive conduct intended to maintain or extend this
monopoly would harm competition and could possibly be violatire of
our laws.
I believe no one would disagree that the DC Circuit Court's
decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that a monopolist,
even a monopolist in a high-tech industry like software, must
compete on the merits to maintain its monopoly, which brings us to
today's hearing. We are here to examine the policy implications of
the proposed settlement in the Government's antitrust litigation
against Microsoft.
Mr. Chairman, rather than closing the book on the Microsoft
inquiry, the proposed settlement appears to be only the end of the
latest chapter. The settling parties are currently in the middle of
the so-called Tunney Act process before the court, and the non-
settling parties have chosen to further litigate this matter and
last week filed their own proposed settlement. This has been a
complex case with significant consequences for Microsoft, high-tech
entrepreneurs, and the American public as well.
The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Justice
Department and nine of the plaintiff State attorneys general is
highly technical. We have all been studying it and its impact with
great interest. Each of us has heard from some, including some of
our witnesses here today, that the agreement contains much that is
very good. Not surprisingly, we have also heard and read much
criticism of the settlement. These are complex issues, and I would
hope today's hearing will illuminate the many questions that we
have.
I should note that about two weeks ago I sent a set of detailed
and extensive questions about the scope, interpretation, and
intended effects of the proposed settlement to the Justice
Department, naturally seeking further information on my part.
First, I want to commend the Department for getting the
responses to these questions to me promptly. We received them
yesterday. I think the questions, which were made public, and the
Department's responses could be helpful to each member in forming an
independent and fair analysis of the proposed settlement.
To that end, and for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to make both the questions and the Department's answers
part of the record for this hearing. So I would ask unanimous
consent that they be made part of the record.
As I noted in my November 29th letter to the Department, I have
kept an open mind regarding this settlement and continue to do so. I
have had questions regarding the practical enforceability of the
proposed settlement and whether it will effectively remedy the
unlawful practices identified by the DC Circuit and restore
competition in the software marketplace.
I am also cognizant of both the limitation of the claims
contained in the original Justice Department complaint by the DC
Circuit, as well as the standards for enforcement under settled
antitrust law. I believe that further information regarding
precisely how the proposed settlement will be interpreted, given DC
Circuit case law, is necessary to any full and objective analysis of
the remedies proposed therein. I hope that this hearing will result
in the development of such information that would supplement the
questions that I have put forth to the Department.
Mr. Chairman, one important and critical policy issue that I
would hope we can address today and that I would like all of our
witnesses to consider as they wait to be empaneled so that they can
discuss is the difficult issue of the temporal relation of antitrust
enforcement in new high- technology markets.
It cannot be overemphasized that timing is a critical issue in
examining conduct in the so-called ``new economy.''
Indeed, the most significant lesson the Microsoft case has taught us
is this fact. The DC Circuit found this issue noteworthy enough to
discuss in the first few pages of its opinion, and I will quote from
the unanimous court:
``[w]hat is somewhat problematic...is that just over six
years have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct
plaintiffs allege to be anticompetitive. As the record in this case
indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer
industry. By the time a court can assess liability, firms, products,
and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically. This,
in turn,
[[Page 30200]]
threatens enormous practical difficulties for courts considering the
appropriate measure of relief in equitable enforcement
actions.'' The court goes on to say, ``Innovation to a
large degree has already rendered the anticompetitive conduct
obsolete (although by no means harmless).''
Now, this issue is one that is relevant for this committee to
consider as a larger policy matter, as well as how it relates to
this case and the proposed settlement we are examining today.
Let me just say that one of the things that worries me is what
are the enforcement capabilities of this settlement agreement? It
was only a few years before these matters arose that Microsoft had
agreed to a consent, a conduct decree that many feel they did not
live up to, and I think it is a legitimate issue to raise as to how
will the agreement that the Justice Department has worked out with
Microsoft and nine of the plaintiffs be enforced if anticompetitive
conduct continues.
In that regard, let me just raise Mr. Barksdale's letter, which
I believe you put into the record.
The Chairman. I did, I did.
Senator Hatch. Well, let me just raise it because he does make
some interesting comments in his letter and I can read them, I think
they might be at least part of opening up the questions in this
matter. I will just quote a few paragraphs.
He says, ``These developments have stiffened my resolve to
do all I can to ensure that competition and consumer choice are
reintroduced to the industry. It is vitally important that no
company can do to a future Netscape what Microsoft did to Netscape
from 1995 to 1999. It is universally recognized that the 1995
consent decree was ineffective, I respectfully submit that the
Proposed Final Judgment, PFJ, which is the subject of the hearing,
will be even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 decree in
restoring competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior.
Accordingly, Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion
that I help the committee answer one of the central questions. If
the PFJ had been in effect all along, how would it have affected
Netscape? More important, how will it affect future
Netscapes?''
He describes the impact on future Netscapes as follows, and let
me just read a couple of paragraphs in this regard.
``As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994,
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into
being in the first place. The work of Mark Andreesen's team at the
University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely
have remained an academic exercise. An innovative, independent
browser company simply could not survive under the PFJ, and such
would be the effect on any company developing in the future
technologies as innovative as the Microsoft did to Netscape from
1995 to 1999. It is universally recognized that the 1995 consent
decree was ineffective, I respectfully submit that the Proposed
Final Judgment, PFJ, which is the subject of the hearing, will be
even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 decree in restoring
competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior. Accordingly,
Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion that I help the
committee answer one of the central questions. If the PFJ had been
in effect all along, how would it have affected Netscape? More
important, how will it affect future Netscapes?''
He describes the impact on future Netscapes as follows, and let
me just read a couple of paragraphs in this regard. ``As
discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous conclusion is
that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft and the
Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994, Netscape would
have never been able to obtain the necessary venture capital
financing. In fact, the company would not have come into being in
the first place. The work of Mark Andreesen's team at the University
of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely have
remained an academic exercise. An innovative, independent browser
company simply could not survive under the PFJ, and such would be
the effect on any company developing in the future technologies as
innovative as the browser was in the mid-1990s.'' He goes on to
characterize whether or not Microsoft could have developed this
itself, but let me just read the last few paragraphs of this letter.
``If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it
is unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture
capital financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a
tragedy for our Nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the
PFJ is ``good for the economy'' unquote. If the PFJ goes
into effect, it will subject an entire industry to dominance by an
unconstrained monopolist, thus snuffing out competition, consumer
choice, and innovation in perhaps our Nation's most important
industry. And, worse, it will allow them to extend their dominance
to more businesses such as financial services, entertainment,
telecommunications, and perhaps many others. Four years ago, I
appeared before the committee and was able to demonstrate, with the
help of the audience, that Microsoft undoubtedly had a monopoly.
Now, it has been proven in the courts that Microsoft not only has a
monopoly, but they have illegally maintained that monopoly through a
series of abusive and predatory actions. I submit to the committee
that Microsoft is infinitely stronger in each of their core
businesses than they were four years ago, despite the fact that
their principal arguments have been repudiated 8-0 by the
Federal courts. I hope you will keep these thoughts in mind during
your hearings.'' Then he said, ``A more detailed analysis
of my views follows.''
Well, the importance of that letter is basically Barksdale was
one of the original complainants against Microsoft and was one of
the very important witnesses before this committee in those years
when we were trying to figure what we are doing here. I don't think
you can ignore that, and so these questions have to be answered that
he raises, plus the questions that I have given as well.
So you have put that letter in the record?
The Chairman. I have, and also I understood you wanted those
letters that you had to Mr. James. Those are also part of the
record.
Senator Hatch. I appreciate it.
Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you are
continuing the committee's important role in high- technology policy
matters, as I would expect you to do because I know that you take a
great interest in these matters, as does, I think, every individual
person on the committee.
I certainly look forward to hearing our witnesses 23 today, and
I am going to keep an open mind on where we are 24 going here and
hopefully we can resolve these matters in a 25 way that is
beneficial to everybody, including those who are against Microsoft
and Microsoft itself.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kohl?
Senator Kohl. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this
hearing here today.
This is a crucial time for competition in the high-tech sector
of our economy. After spending more than three years pursuing its
groundbreaking antitrust case against Microsoft, the Government has
announced a settlement. But the critical question remains, will this
settlement break Microsoft's stranglehold over the computer software
industry and restore competition in this vital sector of our
economy? I have serious doubts that it will.
An independent Federal court, both the trial court and 16 the
Court of Appeals, found that Microsoft broke the law and that its
violation should be fixed. This antitrust case was as big as they
come. Microsoft crushed a competitor, illegally tried to maintain
its monopoly, and stifled innovation in this market.
Now, after all these years of litigation, of charges and
counter-charges, this settlement leaves us wondering, did we really
accomplish anything. Or in the words of the old song, ``is that
all there is?'' Does this settlement obey the Supreme Court
mandate that it must deny the antitrust vr 18 1 violator the fruits
of its illegal conduct?
It seems to me and to many, including nine of the States that
joined the Federal Government in suing Microsoft, that this
settlement agreement is not strong enough to do the job, to restore
competition to the computer software industry. It contains so many
loopholes, qualifications, and exceptions that many worry that
Microsoft will easily be able to evade its provisions.
Today, for the vast majority of computer users, the first thing
they see when they turn on their machine is the now familiar
Microsoft logo, placed on the Microsoft start menu, and all of their
computer operations take place through the filter of Microsoft's
Windows operating system. Microsoft's control over the market is so
strong that today more than 95 percent of all personal computers run
on the Windows operating system, a market share high enough to
constitute a monopoly under antitrust law.
Its share of the Internet browsing market is now over 85
percent, and it reported a profit
[[Page 30201]]
margin of 25 percent in the most recent quarter, a very high number
in challenging economic times. Microsoft has the power to dictate
terms to manufacturers who wish to gain access to the Windows
operating system and the ability to leverage its dominance into
other forms of computer software. And Microsoft has never been shy
about using its market power.
Are we here today really confident that in five years this
settlement will have had any appreciable impact on these facts of
life in the computer industry? I am not.
We stand today on the threshold of writing the rules of
competition in the digital age. We have two options. One option
involves one dominant company controlling the computer desktop
facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a
gatekeeper to 95 percent of all personal computer users. The other
model is the flowering of innovation and new products that resulted
from the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly nearly 20 years
ago. From cell phones to faxes, from long-distance price wars to the
development of the Internet itself, the end of the telephone
monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and services that
benefit millions of consumers everyday. We should insist on nothing
less in this case.
In sum, any settlement in this case should make the market for
computer software as competitive as the market for computer hardware
is today. While there is nothing wrong with settling, of course, we
should insist on a settlement that has an immediate, substantial and
permanent impact on restoring competition in this industry.
I thank our witnesses for testifying today and we look 24
forward to hearing your views.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator DeWine?
Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
this very important hearing concerning the Department of Justice's
Proposed Final Judgment in its case against Microsoft.
Mr. Chairman, as we examine this judgment and attempt to imagine
what it will mean for the future of competition in this market, we
must keep in mind the serious nature of this case. According to the
DC Circuit Court, Microsoft did, in fact, violate our antitrust
laws. Their behavior hurt the competitive marketplace. This is
something that we must keep in mind as we examine the Proposed Final
Judgment.
This hearing is particularly important at this time because
Federal law does require the district court to examine the proposed
settlement and determine if it is, in fact, in the public interest.
Federal law clearly allows the public to be heard on such matters. I
believe that this forum today will further that process of public
discussion.
The Court of Appeals in this case, relying on established
Supreme Court case law, explained what an appropriate remedy in an
antitrust case such as this one must seek to accomplish. It should
unfetter the market from anticompetitive conduct, terminate the
illegal monopoly, and deny the defendant the fruits of its
violations. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we examine whether
the decree would, in fact, accomplish these goals.
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what the
competitive impact of the decree will be. While the proposed
settlement correctly, I believe, focuses primarily on the market for
middleware, there has been a great deal of concern raised about the
mechanism for enforcing such a settlement. Specifically, I think we
need 8 to discuss further whether the public interest would be
better served with a so-called special master or some sort of other
administrative mechanism, or whether the Justice Department could be
more effective enforcing the decree on its own.
In addition to the Department of Justice's Proposed Final
Judgment, we also have the benefit of another remedies proposal that
has been submitted to the court by nine States that did not join
with the Antitrust Division's proposal. I would like to hear from
our witnesses about the role they believe this alternative proposal
should play in the ongoing Tunney Act proceedings.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Court of Appeals
directed that any remedy should seek to deny Microsoft the fruits of
its illegal activities. One clear benefit Microsoft derived from its
violations was the effective destruction of Netscape as a serious
competitor and a decrease in Java's market presence. It is obviously
impossible to go back in time and resurrect the exact market
structure that existed, but it is important to discuss how the
proposed settlement deals with this problem.
I would also like to note for the record that Microsoft will be
represented today by one of their outside counsel, Rick Rule, rather
than an actual employee of the company. Mr. Rule is an outstanding
antitrust lawyer. He is well qualified to testify on this issue and
we certainly look forward to hearing his testimony today.
However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am disappointed that
Microsoft chose not to send an actual officer of the company because
it does not appear to represent, frankly, the fresh start that I
think we were all hoping to begin today.
Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Hatch, and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Kohl for all of your hard
work in putting this hearing together and all of your work on this
issue generally over the last few years.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and to
the committee's continuing oversight of this very important issue.
The Chairman. Mr. James, there is a vote on the floor. I think
there are two or three minutes left in the roll call vote. We are
going to suspend while we go to vote, but I think--
Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I have a really brief
statement. Could I make that before you adjourn?
The Chairman. You can.
Senator McConnell. Let me just say that this hearing and the
accompanying media spectacle indicate the Microsoft case is the
subject of significant public interest and debate. Some argue that
the case itself should never have 9 been filed to begin with, and
now after nearly four years of litigation, Microsoft, the Department
of Justice and nine States have reached a settlement.
I just want to commend the parties for their tireless effort and
countless hours spent in reaching the compromise. Settlement is
nearly always preferable to litigation, and regulation by the market
is nearly always better than regulation by litigation, or the
Government for that matter.
As far as what the public thinks, just this week a nationwide
survey indicated that the U.S. Government and Microsoft agreed to
settle the antitrust case. However, nine State AGs argued that the
antitrust case against Microsoft should continue. Which statement do
you agree with?
The U.S. economy and consumers would be better off if the issue
Were settled as soon as possible: 70 percent. The curt should
continue to investigate whether Microsoft should be punished for its
business activities: 2percent. Not that the public is always
determinative, but I thought that would be an interesting
observation to add.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. James, I think you would note from the
comments that they sort of go across the board here. The majority of
people favor a settlement, but I must say that I don't think the
majority of people favor any settlement; they favor a good
settlement, and that is what the questions will be directed at and
that is why nine attorneys general have expressed concern. Nine
agreed with the settlement, nine disagreed with the settlement.
These are all very good, very talented people. So in your testimony
when we come back, you have heard a number of the questions that
have been raised and we look forward to you responding to them.
We will stand in recess while we vote.
[The committee stood in recess from 10:40 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.]
The Chairman. I should note for the record that Mr. James has
served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division
since June 2001. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for the Antitrust Division for the first Bush administration
from 198to 1992. He served as Acting Assistant Attorney General for
several months in 1992, then was head of the antitrust practice at
Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, in Washington.
Not knowing what the Senate schedule might be, Mr. James, we
will put your whole statement in the record, of course. I wonder if
you might summarize it, but also with some reference to the charge
made in the letter to Senator Hatch and myself by Mr. Barksdale, who
said had these been the ground rules, he never would have been able
to get Netscape off the ground. Had these been the ground rules at
the time they started Netscape, they never would have been able to
create Netscape. If that is accurate, of course, then we have got a
real problem.
So, Mr. James, it is all yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. JAMES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ANTITRUST DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. James. Thank you, Senator Leahy, and good morning to you and
members of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the proposed settlement of
[[Page 30202]]
our still pending case against Microsoft Corporation.
With me today are Deborah Majoris, my deputy, and Phil Malone,
who has been the lead staff lawyer on the Microsoft case from the
very beginning. I note their presence here because they were the
ones who responded to the judge's order that we negotiate around the
clock and I think they have recovered now.
As you know, on November the Department and nine States entered
into the proposed settlement. We are in the midst of the Tunney Act
period, as you know, and that will end at the end of January, at
which point the district court will determine whether the settlement
is in the public interest. We think that it is.
I am somewhat limited in what I can say about the case because
of the pendency of the Tunney Act proceeding. But, of course, I am
happy to discuss this with the committee for the purpose of public
explication.
When thinking about the Microsoft case, from my perspective it
is always important to distinguish between Microsoft, the public
spectacle, and Microsoft, the actual legal dispute. We look, in
particular, to what the Department alleged in its complaint and how
the court ruled on those allegations.
The Antitrust Division's complaint had four counts: attempted
monopolization of the browser market, in violation of Section 2;
individual anticompetitive acts and a course of conduct to maintain
the operating system monopoly, in violation of Section of the
Sherman Act; tying its own browser to the operating system, in
violation of Section 1; and exclusive dealing, in violation of
Section 1.
I would note that a separate monopoly leveraging claim brought
by the States was thrown out prior to trial, and that the States at
one time had alleged in their complaint monopolization of the
Microsoft office market, and that was eliminated by the States
through an amendment.
There was, of course, a trial before Judge Jackson, at the
conclusion of which Judge Jackson found for the Government on
everything but exclusive dealing and ordered Microsoft to be split
into separate operating system and applications businesses after a
one-year transitional period under interim conduct remedies.
On appeal, however, only the monopoly maintenance claim survived
unscathed. The attempted monopoly claim was dismissed. The tying
claim was reversed and remanded for further proceedings under a much
more rigorous standard. And the remedy was vacated, with the court
ordering remedial hearings before a new judge to address the fact
that the liability findings had been, in their words,
``drastically curtailed.''
Even the monopoly maintenance claim was cut back in the Court of
Appeals decision. The Court of Appeals found for Microsoft on some
of the specific practices and ruled against the Government on the
so-called course of conduct theory of liability.
I recount all of this history to make two basic points that I
think are important as we discuss the settlement. First, the case,
even as initially framed by the Department of Justice, was a fairly
narrow challenge. It was never a direct assault on the acquisition
of the operating system monopoly itself.
Second, and perhaps much more important, the case that emerged
from the Court of Appeals was much narrower still, focusing
exclusively on the middleware threat to the operating system
monopoly and specific practices, not a course of conduct found to be
anticompetitive.
The Court of Appeals decision determined the reality of the case
as we found it in the Department when I first arrived there in June,
as you noted. The conduct found to be unlawful by the court was the
sole basis for relief.
It is probably worth talking just briefly about the monopoly
maintenance claim. The complaint alleges that Microsoft engaged in
various anticompetitive practices to impede the development of rival
Web browsers and Java. These products came to be known as middleware
and were thought to pose a threat to the operating system monopoly
because they had the potential to become platforms for other
software applications. The court noted that the middleware threat
was nascent; that is to say that no one could predict when, if ever,
enough applications would be written to middleware for it to
significantly displace the operating system monopoly.
A few comments about the settlement itself. In general terms,
our settlement has several important points that we think fully and
demonstrably remedy the middleware issues that were at the heart of
the monopoly maintenance claim.
In particular, our decree contains a very broad definition of
middleware that specifically includes the forms of platform software
that have been identified as potential operating system threats
today and likely to emerge as operating system threats in the
future. It prohibits in the broadest terms the types of contractual
restrictions and exclusionary arrangements the Court of Appeals
found to be unlawful. It fences in those prohibitions with
appropriate non-discrimination and non- retaliation provisions, and
it creates an environment in which middleware developers can create
programs that compete with Microsoft on a function-by-function basis
through a regime of mandatory API documentation and disclosure.
In the most simple terms, we believe our remedy will permit the
development and deployment of middleware product without fear of
retaliation or economic disadvantage. That is what we believe and
what the court found that consumers actually lost through
Microsoft's unlawful conduct, and that is what we think consumers
will gain through our remedy.
With specific reference to what Mr. Barksdale said, if I may, I
have not reviewed Mr. Barksdale's letter. I know that in this
particular situation, with so much at stake in this particular
settlement, I have seen lots of hyperbolic statements. I certainly
wouldn't necessarily characterize his in that vein without having
read it in some detail.
I would note, however, that--
The Chairman. Mr. James, we are going to give you an opportunity
to do that because I want you to look at it. You can feel free to
call it hyperbolic or however, but I would ask that you and your
staff look at his letter, which does raise some serious questions,
and I would like to see what response you have for the record.
Mr. James. I would be happy to do so. And with that, I would be
happy to answer your questions.
The Chairman. Did you have more that you wanted to say on the
letter?
Mr. James. No, sir. I am happy to respond to what you folks want
to talk about.
The Chairman. The Department of Justice has been involved in
litigation against Microsoft for more than 1 years. I am one of
those who had hoped throughout that that the parties might come to
some conclusion. I think that if you can have a fair conclusion, it
is in the best interests of the consumers, the Government,
Microsoft, competitors, and everybody else. I have no problem with
that, but that presupposes the right kind of settlement.
Over the course of those 1years, the parties entered into one
consent decree that just ended up with a whole lot more litigation
over the terms of that consent decree. I mention that because you
take this settlement and it is already being criticized by some for
the vagueness of its terms and its loopholes. Judge Robert Bork
warned, and I think I am quoting him correctly, ``It is likely
to guarantee years of additional litigation.''
Now, what kind of assurances can you give or what kind of
predictions can you give that if this settlement is agreed to by the
court that we are going to see an end to this litigation and we are
going to have a stop to this kind of merry-go-round of Microsoft
litigation concerning compliance or even the meanings of the consent
decree?
I notice a lot of people in this room on both sides of the
issue. I have a feeling that they are here solely because of their
interest in Government and not because the meter is running. A lot
of us would like to see this thing end, but why do you feel that
this settlement is so good that that is going to end?
Mr. James. Well, Senator, that is certainly a legitimate
question and I understand the spirit in which it is asked. One of, I
think, the facts of life is that one of the reasons that we have so
many antitrust lawyers, and perhaps why there are so many of them in
this room, is that firms with substantial market positions very
often are the subject of appropriate antitrust scrutiny, and so it
is with Microsoft and so it should be.
Our settlement here is a settlement that resolves a fairly
complex piece of litigation. It by its terms is going to be a
complex settlement, inasmuch as it does cover a broad range of
activities and has to look into the future prospectively in a manner
that benefits consumers. And some of that consumer benefit certainly
will come from the development of competing products. Some of that
consumer benefit, however, will come from competition from Microsoft
as it moves into other middleware products, et cetera.
We think that the terms of the decree are certainly enforceable.
I think so much of what has been called a loophole are things that
are carve-outs necessary to facilitate pro-competitive behavior, and
we certainly think
[[Page 30203]]
that the enforcement power embodied in this decree--I would
say an unprecedented level of enforcement power, three tiers of
enforcement power--is sufficiently to let the Department of
Justice do its job.
The Chairman. But keep in mind that usually in these kinds of
decrees, if it is not specifically laid out, the courts tend to
decide the vague questions against the Government, not for the
Government. Fortune Magazine said even the loopholes have
loopholes--a pretty strong statement from a very pro-business
magazine. The settlement limits the types of retaliation Microsoft
can take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or promote non-
Microsoft software, but some would say that it gives a green light
to other types of retaliation.
Now, why doesn't the settlement ban all types of retaliation?
The Court of Appeals said twice that if you commingle the browser
and operating system code, you violate Section of the Sherman Act.
The proposed settlement contains no prohibition on commingling code.
There is no provision barring the commingling of browser code and
the operating code. So you have got areas where they can retaliate.
You don't have the barring of this commingling of code.
I mean, are Fortune Magazine, Judge Bork and others justified in
thinking there are a few too many loopholes here, notwithstanding
the levels of enforcement?
Mr. James. Let me take your points in order. First, on the
subject of retaliation, retaliation is a defined term in this
decree. It is a term that we are using to define a sort of conduct
that Microsoft can engage in when it engages in ordinary commercial
transactions.
I don't think that there is any scope in the bounds of this case
to prohibit Microsoft from engaging in any form of collaborative
conduct with anyone in the computer industry, and certainly the
types of collaborative conduct that are permitted, the so-called
loopholes, are the type of conduct that is permitted under standard
Supreme Court law embodied in decisions like Broadcast Music v.
NCAA, and also embodied in the Federal Trade Commission-Department
of Justice joint venture guidelines as sanctioned forms of conduct.
So we think that antitrust lawyers certainly can understand these
types of issues and we think the courts can understand these types
of issues.
Secondly, with regard to your more particular point about
commingling code, it is certainly the case that the Court of
Appeals, following upon the district court decision, found that
Microsoft had engaged in an act of
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''
December 12, 2001
I am troubled by the decision of Committee, acting in its
official capacity, to send a transcript of this hearing to the
federal district court that will determine the outcome of this
pending litigation. By taking the apparently unprecedented step of
sending a transcript of a hearing on pending litigation to the judge
that is deciding the case, this Committee may have unintentionally
traversed the critical boundary between attempting to inform the
court and attempting to influence it.
The Constitution vests the legislative power in the Congress,
Article I, �1, the executive power in the President, Article II,
1, and the judicial power in the Supreme Court and
lower federal courts, Article III, 1. Thus, Congress
has the power to make law pursuant to its enumerated powers, the
President has the power to enforce these laws, and the courts have
the separate power to ``say what the law
is''--``to rule on cases ... to decide them,''
Marbury-- v. Madison, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 17(1803); Plaut v.
Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 51U.S. 211,21(1995).
The separation of powers principle not only outlines the
distinct spheres of operation of the three branches of government
but also guides the branches in their dealings with each other. It
is crystal clear that the Framers of our Constitution intended to
have a judiciary that is independent of Congress. The provision for
judges to hold office during good behavior in Article III, 1, for
example, was said by Alexander Hamilton to constitute an
``excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the
representative body.'' THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 46(Hamilton)
(Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). Thus, with respect to this case,
Congress, the Senate, and this Committee, should defer to the court
to decide the case by exercising its independent judgement. A
publicized congressional hearing and a transcript submission to the
court can only be perceived as an attempt to create for senators a
status at a Tunney hearing that neither the court nor the Tunney Act
permits.
While the Tunney Act provides that a district court should
accept comments from the public on a proposed antitrust settlement
agreement, it does not provide for any role by the legislative
branch in such a hearing. See Pub. L. No. 93-52(1974). Indeed,
the Congressional Research Service has informed me that it has found
``no instances in which any comments-- whether Hearing
transcripts, summaries of Hearing transcripts, or other written
communications--were sent to'' the district court in a
Tunney Act hearing. Congressional Research Service, Memorandum (Dec.
18,2001).
While any senator may file comments on a proposed settlement
agreement as a private citizen, it infringes upon the separation of
powers Page of principle for the Senate or this Committee officially
to do so. It is the litigants and the public that inform the court
in a Tunney Act hearing, not the Congress..See Pub. L. No.
93-528. For this Committee to submit its views on the merits
of pending litigation creates the appearance of an attempt to
influence the Article III federal court in the exercise of its
independent judicial power.
In addition to my constitutional concern, I have an underlying
prudential concern. This transcript will include several statements
from Senators opining on the merits of the Microsoft settlement
agreement. A case such as this one involves a complex body of law
and an extraordinary amount of evidence. Neither I nor, to the best
of my knowledge, any other member of this Committee or of the Senate
has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the law and the facts of
this case. Consequently, our opinion with respect to this non-
legislative matter is worth no more than that of any other
reasonably informed citizen who may submit information to the court.
There is no legitimate rationale for any court to give more weight
to our opinions, whether stamped with the imprimatur of this
Committee or not, than to the opinions of others. Accordingly, I
respectfully object to the Chairman and Ranking Member's decision,
without a vote of the Committee, to submit on behalf of the
Committee, a copy of the transcript of this hearing to the district
court.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. JAMES ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANTITRUST
DIVISION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE
CONCERNING THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE PRESENTED ON
DECEMBER 12, 200
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the Department's still-pending
antitrust enforcement action against Microsoft Corporation.
On November 2, 2001, the Department stipulated to entry of a
proposed consent decree that would resolve the case. Nine states
joined in the proposed settlement.'' We are in the midst of the
60-day public comment period under the Tunney Act, after which we
will file a response to the comments, and the district court will
rule on whether the proposed consent decree is in the public
interest. Nine other states, and the District of Columbia, have not
signed the proposed consent decree.
The Department's position regarding the proposed settlement is
set forth in documents filed in the pending Tunney Act proceeding.
Because of the pendency of the proceeding, and the somewhat remote
possibility that the case will return to litigation, I am somewhat
limited in what I can say about the case and settlement.
Nonetheless, I am happy to appear before you today to discuss in
general terms how the settlement promotes the public interest by
resolving the allegations sustained by the court of appeals.
When we in the Department address the Microsoft case, it is
important for us
1 New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentuck)'', Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to ignore the
media spectacle and clash-of-the-titans imagery, and focus instead
on the actual legal dispute presented to the court. In discussing
the case and the proposed consent decree, it is important to keep in
mind not only ,,','hat the Department alleged in our complaint, but
how the courts--in particular, the DC Circuit--ruled. As a
result of the appeals court's ruling, the case is in many important
respects considerably narrower than the one the Department
originally brought in the spring of 199and narrower still than Judge
Jackson's ruling in June of 2000.
I would like to take a few minutes to refocus attention on the
legal allegations charged in the complaint, how those allegations
were resolved in the courts, and
[[Page 30204]]
the remedies in the proposed consent decree presently undergoing
Tunney Act review. I believe these proposed remedies fully and
demonstrably resolve the monopoly maintenance finding that the DC
Circuit affirmed.
The complaints flied by the Department, the states, and the
District of Columbia alleged: (1) that Microsoft had engaged in a
series of specific anticompetitive acts, and a course of
anticompetitive conduct, to maintain its monopoly position in the
market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible
personal computers, in violation of Section of the Sherman Act; (2)
that Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the web browser market,
also in violation of Section 2; (3) that Microsoft had illegally
tied its web browser, Internet Explorer, to its operating system, in
violation of Section 1; and (4) that Microsoft had entered into
exclusive dealing arrangements that also violated Section 1. A
separate monopoly leveraging claim advanced by the state plaintiffs
was dismissed prior to trial. After a full trial on the merits, the
district court ultimately sustained the first three claims, while
finding that the exclusive dealing claim had not been proved.
The DC Circuit, however, significantly narrowed the case,
affirming the district court's finding of liability only as to the
monopoly maintenance claim, and even there only as to a smaller
number of specified anticompetitive actions. Of the twenty
anticompetitive acts the court of appeals reviewed, it reversed with
respect to eight of the acts that the district court had sustained
as elements of the monopoly maintenance claim. Additionally, the DC
Circuit reversed the lower court's finding that Microsoft's
``course of conduct'' separately violated Section of the
Sherman Act. It reversed the district court's rulings on the
attempted monopolization and tying claims, remanding the tying claim
for further proceedings under a much more difficult rule of reason
standard. And, of course, it vacated the district court's final
judgment that had set forth the break-up remedy and interim conduct
remedies.
The antitrust laws do not prohibit a firm from having a
monopoly, but only from illegally acquiring or maintaining a
monopoly through interference with the competitive efforts of
rivals. There has never been any serious contention that Microsoft
acquired its operating system monopoly through unlawful means, and
the existence of the operating system monopoly itself was not
challenged in this case.
With regard to the monopoly maintenance claim, the court of
appeals upheld the conclusion that Microsoft had engaged in unlawful
exclusionary conduct by using contractual provisions to prohibit
computer manufacturers from supporting competing middleware products
on Microsoft's operating system; by prohibiting consumers and
computer manufacturers from removing Microsoft's middleware products
from the desktop; and by reaching agreements with software
developers and third parties to exclude or disadvantage competing
middleware products--all to protect Microsoft's monopoly in the
operating system market.
The Department proved that Microsoft had engaged in these
anticompetitive practices to discourage the development and
deployment of rival web browsers and Java technologies, in an effort
to prevent them from becoming middleware threats to its operating
system monopoly. Netscape had gained a respectable market share as a
technology for navigating the then-burgeoning Internet, and Netscape
proponents were touting the prospect of a new world of Internet
computing that would make operating systems less relevant. Netscape
touted its web browser as a new category of software that came to be
known as ``middleware,'' a form of software that, like
Microsoft's Windows operating system, exposed a broad range of
applications program interfaces (``APIs'') to which
software developers could write applications. This created the
potential that--if Netscape Navigator continued to gain market
share and could run on operating systems other than Microsoft's, and
if large numbers of software developers wrote applications programs
to it--computer users would have viable competitive
alternatives to Microsoft.
The middleware threat was nascent. That is, as both the district
court and the court of appeals acknowledged, it was a potential
threat to the operating system monopoly that had not )'el become
real. It could not be predicted when, if ever, enough applications
programs would be written to middleware products for middleware to
significantly displace Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft took
this nascent middleware threat to its operating system monopoly
seriously. The trial record disclosed a corporate preoccupation with
thwarting Netscape and displacing Netscape's Navigator with
Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the prevailing web browser. This
campaign featured a host of strong-arm tactics aimed at various
computer manufacturers, Internet access providers, and independent
software developers. Even the decision to integrate its own browser
into the operating system--in effect, giving it away for
free--had an element of impeding the growth of Netscape and
once was described as taking away Netscape's oxygen. Microsoft took
similar actions against Java technologies. Among other things,
Microsoft required software developers to promote its own version of
Java technology exclusively and threatened developers if they
assisted competing Java products.
The district court ruled not only that Microsoft had engaged in
various specified illegal exclusionary practices, but that these
acts were part of an overall anticompetitive course of conduct. The
DC Circuit agreed as to some of the specified practices, while
ruling that others--for example, Microsoft's practice of
preventing computer manufacturers from substituting their own user
interfaces over the Windows interface supplied by
Microsoft--Were justified and thus lawful. The DC Circuit also
rejected the course-of-conduct theory, under which Microsoft's
specific practices could be viewed as parts of a broader, more
general monopolistic scheme, ruling that Microsoft's practices must
be viewed individually.
Following the appellate court's instructions, we, in considering
a possible remedy, focused on the specific practices that the court
had ruled unlawful. We took as a starting point the district court's
interim conduct remedies. Those remedies, however, were based on a
much wider range of liability findings than had been affirmed on
appeal. Accordingly, they had to be tailored to the findings that
had actually been affirmed. Further, because the interim conduct
remedies were designed to apply only as a stop-gap until the
district court's divestiture order was implemented, we broadened
them in important respects to more full{time} ; address the remedial
objectives of arresting the anticompetitive conduct, preventing its
recurrence, and restoring lost competition to the marketplace.
Finally, we updated the remedies to strengthen their long-term
effectiveness in the face of the rapid technological innovation that
continues to characterize the computer industry--so that
the,,'' will be relevant in the Windows XP operating system
world and beyond.
Under the proposed consent decree, Microsoft will be required to
disclose to other software developers the interfaces used by
Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system,
enabling other software developers to create competing products that
emulate Microsoft's integrated functions. Microsoft will also have
to disclose the protocols that are necessary for software located in
a server computer to interoperate with Windows on a PC. Microsoft
will have to permit computer manufacturers and consumers to
substitute competing middleware software on the desktop. It will be
prohibited from retaliating against computer manufacturers or
software developers for supporting or developing certain competing
software. To further guard against possible retaliation, Microsoft
will be required to license its operating system to key computer
manufacturers on uniform terms for five ``,'ears.
Microsoft will be prohibited from entering into agreements
requiring the exclusive support or development of certain Microsoft
software, so that software developers and computer manufacturers can
continue to do business with Microsoft while also supporting and
developing rival middleware products. And Microsoft will be required
to license any intellectual property to computer manufacturers and
software developers necessary for them to exercise their rights
under the proposed decree, including, for example, using the
middleware protocols disclosed by ]Microsoft to interoperate with
the operating system.
And assumption that, had we litigated the remedy, we were
certain to have secured all of this relief and possibly more misses
the mark. The middleware definition, for example, was a very complex
issue and would have been hard fought in a litigated remedy
proceeding. The term had no generally accepted industry or technical
meaning. At the time of trial, the term ,,,,,as used to describe
software programs that exposed APIs. But in today's world, by virtue
of the extensive degree to which software programs interact with
each other, a very broad range of programs--large and small,
simple and complex--expose APIs. At the same time, middleware
had to be defined
[[Page 30205]]
more broadly than the browser, or it would not provide sufficient
protection for the potential sources of competition that might
emerge. So we developed a definition of middleware, designed to
encompass all technologies that have the potential to be middleware
threats to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. It captures, in
today's market, Internet browsers, e-mail client software, networked
audio/video client software, and instant messaging software. On a
going-forward basis, it also provides guidelines for what types of
software will be considered middleware for purposes of the decree in
the future. These guidelines are critical because, while it is
important that future middleware products be captured by the
proposed decree, those products will not necessarily be readily
identified as such.
The proposed decree protects competition in the middleware
market through a variety of affirmative duties and prohibitions,
which I listed a minute ago. By requiring disclosure of a broad
range of interfaces and protocols that will secure interoperability
for rival software and servers, broadly banning exclusive dealing,
giving computer manufacturers and consumers extensive control of the
desktop and initial boot sequence, and prohibiting a broad range of
retaliatory conduct, the proposed decree will require Microsoft to
fundamentally change the ray in which it deals with computer
manufacturers, Internet access providers, software developers, and
others.
These prohibitions had to be devised keeping in mind that
Microsoft will continue for the foreseeable future to have a
monopoly in the operating systems market. While we recognized that
not all forms of collaboration between Microsoft and others in the
industry are anticompetitive, and that some actually benefit
competition, we drafted the non-discrimination and non-retaliation
provisions broadly enough to prevent Microsoft from using its
monopoly power to apply anticompetitive pressure in this fashion.
We concluded, particularly in light of intervening technological
developments in the computer industry, that the remedial objective
of restoring lost competition had to mean something different than
attempting to restore Netscape and Java specifically to their
previous status as potential nascent threats to Microsoft's
monopoly. Attempting to turn back the hands of time would likely
prove futile and would risk sacrificing important innovations that
have moved the industry beyond float point. So we focused instead on
the market as it exists today, and where it appears to be heading
over the next few years, and devised a remedy to recreate the
potential for the emergence of competitive alternatives to
Microsoft's operating system monopoly through middleware
innovations. With a reported 70,000-odd applications currently
designed to run on Windows, the applications barrier to entry is
quite formidable. The most effective avenue for restoring the
competitive potential of middleware, we concluded, was to ensure
that middleware developers had access to the technical information
necessary to create middleware programs that could compete with
Microsoft in a meaningful way--that is, by requiring Microsoft
to disclose the APIs needed to enable competing middleware
developers to create middleware that matches Microsoft's in
efficiency and functionality.
API disclosure had apparently been a very difficult obstacle to
resolution of the case at every stage. There had never been
an,,'' allegation in the case that Windows was an essential
facility, the proprietary technology for which had to be openly
shared in the industry. So we are very pleased that we were able to
secure this crucial provision in the proposed decree.
Similarly, the proposed decree goes beyond the district court's
order in requiring Microsoft to disclose communications protocols
for servers if they are embedded in the operating system, thereby
protecting the potential for server-based applications to emerge as
a competitive alternative to Microsoft's operating systems monopoly.
Although the issue of Microsoft's potential use of its monopoly
power to inhibit server-based competition was barely raised and
never litigated in the district court, we believed it was an
important concern to resolve in the final negotiations.
The proposed decree also requires Microsoft to create and
preserve ``default'' settings, such that certain of
Microsoft's integrated middleware functions will not be able to
override the selection of a third-party middleware product, and
requires Microsoft to create add/delete functionality to make it
easier for computer manufacturers and users to replace Microsoft
middleware functionality with independently developed middleware.
These are other important respects in which, in light of intervening
technological changes, the proposed decree goes beyond the relief
contemplated in the district court's interim relief order. By giving
middleware developers the means of creating fully, competitive
products, requiring the creation of add/delete functionality, and
making it absolutely clear that computer manufacturers can, in fact,
replace Microsoft middleware on the desktop, the decree will do as
much as possible to restore the nascent threat to the operating
system monopoly that browsers once represented.
The proposed decree contains some of the most stringent
enforcement provisions ever contained in any modern consent decree.
In addition to the ordinary prosecutorial access powers, backed up
by civil and criminal contempt authority, this decree has two other
aggressive features. First, it requires a full-time, on-site
compliance team--complete with its own staff and the power to
hire consultants--that will monitor compliance with the decree,
report violations to the Department, and attempt to resolve
technical disputes under the disclosure provisions. The compliance
team will have complete access to Microsoft's source code, records,
facilities, and personnel. Its dispute resolution responsibilities
reflect the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid,
consensual resolution of issues whenever possible, more so than
litigation under the Department's contempt powers. The dispute
resolution process complements, but does not supplant, ordinary
methods of enforcement. Complainants may bring their inquiries
directly to the Department if they choose.
The decree will be in effect for five 3'ears. It also contains a
provision under which the term may be extended by up to two
additional years in the event that the court finds that Microsoft
has engaged in repeated violations. Assuming that Microsoft ; will
want to get out from under the decree's affirmative obligations and
restrictions as soon as possible, the prospect that it might face an
extension of the decree should provide an extra incentive to comply.
Our practice with regard to enforcement is never influenced by
the extent to which we ``trust'' a defendant. Rather, a
decree must stand on its own as an enforcement vehicle to ensure
effective relief and must contain enforcement provisions sufficient
to address its inherent compliance issues. In this case, those
compliance issues are complex, as the decree seeks to address
Microsoft's interactions with firms throughout the computer
industry. Under the circumstances, I believe the extraordinary
nature of the decree is warranted.
Some have criticized the decree for not going far enough. Some
have asked why we did not continue to pursue divestiture as a
possible remedy. We had several reasons. First, the court of appeals
made it clear that it viewed the break-up remedy with skepticism, to
put it mildly. The court ruled that on remand the district court
must consider whether Microsoft is a unitary company--i.e., one
that could not easily be broken up--and whether plaintiffs
established a significant causal connection between Microsoft's
anticompetitive conduct and its dominant position in the market for
operating systems--a finding not reached by the prior judge.
Second, the legal basis for the structural separation the
Department had been seeking was undercut by the failure to sustain
the two claims that had challenged Microsoft's right to compete
outside its operating system monopoly by integrating new functions
into Windows, the attempted monopolization claim and the tying
claim. The former was dismissed, and the latter was remanded under a
much more difficult rule-of-reason standard. The court of appeals
ruled that, albeit with some limits, Microsoft could lawfully
integrate new functions into the operating system and use the
advantages flowing from its knowledge and design of the operating
system to compete in downstream markets.
Third, and more generally, tile relief in a section 2 case must
have its foundation in the offending conduct. The monopoly
maintenance finding, as modified by tile court of appeals, and
without the ``course-of-conduct'' theory, would not in our
view sustain a broad-ranging structural remedy that went beyond what
was necessary to address Microsoft's unlawful responses to the
middleware threat to its operating system monopoly. Indeed, our new
district judge, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, stated in open court that she
expected our proposed remedy to reflect the fact that portions of
our case had not been sustained.
Finally, from a practical standpoint, even assuming that we
could have eventually secured a breakup of Microsoft--a very
dubious assumption in light of what the
[[Page 30206]]
court of appeals and Judge Kollar-Kotelly have stated--the time
it would have taken to continue litigating the break-up and the
inevitable appeals could easily have delayed relief for another
several >'ears. By taking structural relief off of the table at
the outset of the remedy proceeding on remand, we were able to get
favorable procedural rulings that were essential to moving quickly
to a prompt resolution.
More generally, a number of critics have suggested ways in which
we could have further constrained Microsoft's conduct in the
marketplace--either by excluding it from markets outside the
operating system market, restricting it from integrating functions
into its products or collaborating with others, or requiring it to
widely share its source code as an open platform. While it is
certainly true that restrictions and requirements of this sort might
be desirable and advantageous to Microsoft's competitors, they would
not necessarily be in the interest of competition and consumers
overall; many would reduce consumer choice rather than increase it.
Moreover, to the extent these restrictions go beyond what is needed
to remedy proven antitrust violations, they are not legitimate
remedial goals. The objectives of civil antitrust enforcement are
remedial, and they focus on protecting and restoring competition for
the benefit of consumers, not on favoring particular competitors.
As to more complex questions regarding whether the decree has
properly covered all the elements that will be needed for full
relief, questions of that nature are entirely appropriate and
hopefully will be raised and addressed in the Tunney Act process.
But I believe the decree, by creating the opportunity for
independent software vendors to develop competitive middleware
products on a function-by-function basis, by giving computer
manufacturers the flexibility to place competing middleware products
on Microsoft's operating system, and by monopolization in that it
commingled code for the purpose of preventing the Microsoft browser
from being removed from the desktop. That is certainly the finding
of the Court of Appeals.
Now, in the process of going through my preparation for this
hearing, I went back and looked at the Department of Justice's
position with regard to this. Throughout the course of the case, and
even in the contempt proceeding involving the former tying claims,
it has always and consistently been the Department of Justice's
contention that it did not want to force Microsoft to remove code
from the operating system. They have said that over and over again
in every brief that has been filed in this case.
What the Department of Justice wanted was an appropriate
functionality that would give consumers the choice between
middleware functionalities. That is exactly the remedy that we have
here and we think it is an effective remedy. We have gone beyond
that particular aspect of this by including into our decree a
specific provision that deals with the questions of defaults; in
other words, the extent to which a non-Microsoft middleware product
can take over and be invoked automatically in place of a Microsoft
middleware product. That is something that was not in the earlier
decrees. It is a step beyond what was included in Judge Jackson's
order.
We think that we have addressed the product integration aspects
of the Microsoft monopoly maintenance claim in exactly the terms
that the Department has always pursued with regard to that
particular issue, and we are completely satisfied with that aspect
of the relief.
The Chairman. Well, I have a follow-up on that, as you probably
expect, but my time is up and I want to yield to Senator DeWine.
Actually, I have a follow-up on the retaliation, also, but I do
appreciate your answer.
Senator DeWine?
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. James, this case has been certainly very controversial and
inspired a great deal of discussion regarding the effectiveness of
the antitrust laws, especially within the high-tech industry.
Netscape, for example, vocally opposed Microsoft during this
litigation. Many of Netscape's complaints really were validated by
the courts, and yet Netscape ended up losing the battle. This sort
of result has led some to question whether our antitrust laws can be
effective in this particular industry.
I personally believe that the antitrust laws are essential to
promoting competition within the industry and throughout the
country, but I would like to hear what your views are on this
subject. What lessons do you think this case teaches us in regard to
that and what do we say to people like Netscape?
Mr. James. Well, it is certainly the case that our judicial
system very often can provide a crude tool for redressing particular
issues quickly. I would note that this particular case was litigated
on a very fast track and the people at the Department of Justice are
to be really commended for pushing this case along at even the speed
that it is has taken, considering the comparable speed of other
cases.
I think, however, that the case stands for an important
proposition, and that is that the Department of Justice is up to
meeting the challenge, that it has the tools at its disposal to
investigate unlawful conduct, to understand and appreciate the
implications of what complex technical matters involve, to bring the
resources to bear in order to litigate these cases to a successful
conclusion, and, where appropriate, to teach a settlement that is in
the public interest.
One of the things that I think is an important issue to note
here is that there is certainly a time difference between litigating
a matter of original liability and litigating a matter involving
compliance with a term of a decree.
We think that the enforcement powers that are involved here are
appropriate ones. We think that enforcement by the Department of
Justice is the appropriate way to proceed in these matters, and we
are confident that this provides the sort of best mechanism for
dealing with a complex matter in complex circumstances.
Senator DeWine. One provision of the Proposed Final Judgment
requires Microsoft to allow computer manufacturers to enable access
to competing products. However, for a product to qualify for these
protections, it must have had a million copies distributed in the
United States within the previous year. This would seem to me to run
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new
competition.
Why are these protections limited to larger competitors?
Mr. James. I am actually glad you asked that question, Senator,
because that is one of the prevailing, I think, misconceptions of
the decree. The provisions of the decree that require Microsoft to
allow an OEM to place a middleware product on the desktop apply
without regard to whether or not that product has been distributed
by one million people. That is absolute requirement.
The million-copy distribution provision relates solely to the
question of when Microsoft must undertake these affirmative
obligations to create defaults, for example, for a middleware
product to provide other types of assistance to someone who has
developed that product.
The fact of the matter is that this is something that requires a
great deal of work, particularly these complex matters of setting
defaults which is very important to the competitive circumstances
here. And it would be very difficult to impose upon Microsoft the
responsibility for making these alterations to the operating system
and making them for every subsequent release of the operating system
to be automatic in the case of any software company that just shows
up and says I have a product that competes.
But I want to be very clear here, Senator. Every qualifying
middleware product, without regard to how many. copies it has
distributed--an OEM can place that product on the desktop
immediately, without regard to this one-million threshold.
Quite frankly, in today's world, one million copies distributed
is not a substantial matter. I think in the last year I might have
gotten a million copies of AOL 5.0 in the mail. So I don't think
that that is really a very large impediment.
Senator DeWine. Let me ask one last question. You have mentioned
that a number of provisions in the settlement go beyond the four
corners of the case, but Microsoft agreed to these conditions
anyway.
What are they, and what is the goal of these provisions?
Mr. James. Well, I think one of the most important ones is the
default provision. As of the time of our original case, these
middleware products were operated in a fairly simple way. You
clicked on to that product, you invoked that product, and then you
used it in whatever way was appropriate.
In today's world, software has changed. We see what they call a
more seamless user interface, user experience, and it is necessary
for people to operate deeply within the operating system on an
integrated basis. There were allegations that Microsoft overrode
consumer choice in these default mechanisms in the case.
With regard to each and every one of those instances alleged by
the Justice Department, the Justice Department lost. The court found
for Microsoft. Notwithstanding that, as a
[[Page 30207]]
matter of fencing in and improving the nature of this decree, we
have included into this issue the subject of defaults.
Another important area, I think, is the question of server
interoperability, and that is a very, very important issue as we see
going forward. I think if you go back and read the complaint in this
case, you will find that the word ``server'' almost
virtually never appears. There are no sort of very specific
allegations that go to this. We thought this was an important
alternative platform issue. We thought it was important to stretch
for relief in this case, and we did so and got, I think, relief that
is very effective in preserving this as people go into an
environment of more distributed Web processing. So we think that
that is a very powerful thing.
I think these are two issues that the Department of Justice
would have had a very, very difficult time sustaining in court, to
the extent the court was inclined to limit us to the proof that we
put forward. So I think that these are very positive manifestations
of the settlement.
Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We are checking one thing, and I mention this to
Senator Kohl, Senator Sessions, and Senator Cantwell, who have been
here waiting to ask questions. We are finding out from the floor. We
have been notified that there may have been a move, as any Senator
has a right to do under our Senate rules, to object to committees
meeting more than two hours after the Senate goes in session.
We are on the farm bill and appropriations and other essential
matters, so that I have been told that a Senator has objected, as
every Senator has a right to do, to us continuing. As a result,
because the Senators say they want us to concentrate on what is
going on on the Senate floor, we have to respect the rules of the
Senate. I do, and I am going to have to recess this hearing at this
time.
I am going to put into the record the statements of all those
who have come here to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Himes, Rule, Lessig, Cooper,
Zuck, Szulik, and Kertzman follow:]
The Chairman. Senator Hatch and I will try to find a time we
might reconvene this hearing, because both Senator Hatch and I feel
this is a very important hearing.
The record will be open for questions that might be submitted. I
apologize to everybody. We did not anticipate this. But with 100
Senators, every so often somebody exercises that rule. I would
emphasize Senators have the right to exercise that rule, especially
when we are in the last three weeks of the session. I think we are
going to break for Christmas Day, but we are in the last three weeks
of the session, and I think the Senator invoking the rule wants to
make sure all Senators pay attention to the work on the floor.
Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. but Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch.
We really are technically out of time,
Mr. Chairman, we are out of time. Any Senator can invoke the
two-hour rule and a Senator has done that. Fortunately, I think it
was against the Finance Committee markup today, but we reported out
the bill anyway right within the time constraint. That is where I
went.
Both Senator Leahy and I apologize to the witnesses who have put
such an effort into being here today because this is an important
hearing. These are important matters to both sides--to all
sides, I should say; there are not just two sides here. These
matters have a great bearing on just how positively impactful the
United States is going to be in these areas.
So I hope that we can reconvene within a relatively short period
of time and continue this hearing because it is a very, very
important hearing. We apologize to you that this has happened, but
as Senator Leahy has said, a Senator can do that.
The Chairman. Well, it is out of our hands, but I would note
that normally I would have recessed it until tomorrow, but tomorrow
we are using this time for an executive committee meeting of the
Judiciary Committee to do, as we have done many times already, to
vote out a large number of judges.
So with that, we stand in--Jeff, I am sorry. Senator
Sessions. Just, Mr. Chairman, a matter of procedure. I am troubled
by what I understand to be a decision to send this transcript to the
court as an official document from Congress in the middle of a
litigation that is ongoing.
I would think that anybody's statement that they gave could be
sent to the court. Any Senator can write a letter to the court. I
haven't studied it fully, but just as a practitioner, it troubles me
to have a meddling--
The Chairman. That record is open to anybody who wants to send
anything in. Senator Hatch and I have made that decision and that
will be the decision of the committee.
Senator Sessions. I would be recorded as objecting.
The Chairman. Of course, I understand.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY HEARING
``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''
December 12, 2001
The proposed settlement that the Department of Justice and nine
States have transmitted to the District Court offers a plan for the
conclusion of this landmark antitrust litigation. It must now pass
the legal test set out in the Tunney Act to gain court approval.
That test is both simple and broad, and requires an evaluation of
whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest. There is
significant difference of opinion over how well the proposed
settlement passes this legal test. In fact, the States participating
in the litigation against Microsoft are evenly split, with nine
States joining in the proposed settlement and nine non-settling
States presenting the court with an alternative remedy. As the
courts wrangle with the technical and complex legal issues at stake
in the case, this committee is conducting hearings to educate
ourselves and the public about what this proposed settlement really
means for our high-tech industry and for all of us who use computers
at work, at school, and at home.
Scrutiny of the proposed settlement by this committee during the
course of the Tunney Act proceeding is particularly important. The
focus of our hearing today is to examine whether the proposed
settlement is good public policy and not on the legal
technicalities. The questions raised here and views expressed may
help inform the court. I plan with Senator Hatch to forward to the
court the record of this hearing for consideration as the court goes
about the difficult task of completing the Tunney Act proceedings
and the remedy action by the non-settling States.
I am especially concerned that the District Court take the
opportunity seriously to consider the remedy proposal of the non-
settling States before making her final determination on the other
parties'' proposed settlement. The insights of the other
participants in this complicated and hard- fought case will surely
be valuable additions to the comments received in the Tunney Act
proceeding and help inform the evaluation whether the settlement is
in the public interest.
The effects of this case extend beyond simply the choices
available in the software marketplace. The United States has long
been the world leader in bringing innovative solutions to software
problems, in creating new tools and applications for use on
computers and the Web, and in driving forward the flow of capital
into these new and rapidly growing sectors of the economy. This
creativity is not limited to Silicon Valley. The Burlington,
Vermont, area ranks seventh in the nation in terms of patent
filings. Whether the settlement proposal will help or hinder this
process, and whether the high tech industries will play the
important role that they should in our Nation's economy, is a larger
issue behind the immediate impact of this proposal.
With that in mind, I intend to ask the representatives of the
settling parties how their resolution of this conflict will serve
the ends that the antitrust laws require. Our courts have developed
a test for determining the effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman
Act case: The remedy must end the anticompetitive practices, it must
deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must
ensure that the illegality does not recur. The Tunney Act also
requires that any settlement of such a case serve the public
interest. These are all high standards, but they are reasonable
ones. In this case, the DC Circuit, sitting en banc and writing
unanimously, found that Microsoft had engaged in serious
exclusionary practices, to the detriment of their competitors and,
thus, to all consumers. Today, we must satisfy ourselves that these
matters have been addressed and redressed, or find out why not.
[[Page 30208]]
I have noted my concern that the procedural posture of this case
not jeopardize the opportunity of the non-settling States to have
their ``day in court'' and not deprive the District Court
of the value of their views on appropriate remedies in a timely
fashion. In addition, I have two basic areas of concern about the
proposed settlement. Fist, I find many of the terms of the
settlement to be either confusingly vague, subject to manipulation,
or both. Mr. Rule raised an important and memorable point when he
last testified before this Committee in 1997 during the important
series of hearings convened by Senator Hatch on competition in the
digital age. Testifying about the first Microsoft-Justice Department
consent decree, Mr. Rule said: ``Ambiguities in decrees are
typically resolved against the Government. In addition, the
Government's case must rise or fall on the language of the decree;
the Government cannot fall back on some purported
``spirit'' or ``purpose'' of the decree to
justify an interpretation that is not clearly supported by the
language.'' We take seriously such counsel, and would won-y if
ambiguity in the proposed settlement would jeopardize its
enforcement.
Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described
in the proposed decree lacks the power and the timeliness necessary
to inspire confidence in its effectiveness. Particularly in light of
the absence of any requirement that the decree be read in broad
remedial terms, it is especially important that we inquire into the
likely operation of the proposed enforcement scheme and its
effectiveness.
Any lawyer who has litigated cases and any business person knows
how distracting litigation of this magnitude can be and appreciates
the value that reaching an appropriate settlement can have not only
for the parties but also for consumers, who are harmed by
anticompetitive conduct, and the economy. I do not come to this
hearing prejudging the merits of this proposed settlement but
instead as one ready to embrace a good settlement that puts an end
to the merry-go-round of Microsoft litigation over consent decrees.
But the serious questions that have been raised about the scope,
enforceability and effectiveness of this proposed settlement leave
me concerned that, if approved in its current form, it may simply be
an invitation for the next chapter of litigation. On this point, I
share the concern of Judge Robert Bork, who warns, in his written
submission, that the proposed settlement ``contains so many
ambiguities and loopholes as to make it unenforceable, and likely to
guarantee years of additional litigation.'' I look forward to
hearing from the Department of Justice and other distinguished
witnesses today on the merits of this warning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER
BEFORE THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING ON ``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we conducted a series of hearings in
this Committee in 1997 and 1998 to examine the policy implications
of the competitive landscape of the then burgeoning high-tech
industry, which was about to explode with the advent of the
Internet. Those hearings focused on competition in the industry, in
general, and, more specifically, complaints that Microsoft had been
engaged in anti-competitive behavior that threatened competition and
innovation to the detriment of consumers. Our goal was, and I
believe today is, to determine how best to preserve competition and
foster innovation in the high-technology industry.
Although the Committee, and I, as its Chairman, was criticized
by some, I strongly believed then, and continue to believe now, that
in a robust economy involving new technologies, effective antitrust
enforcement today would prevent the need for heavy-handed government
regulation of business tomorrow. My interest in the competitive
marketplace in the high-technology industry was animated by my
strong opposition to regulation of the industry, whether by the
government, or by one or few companies. As we may remember, the
hearings before the Judiciary Committee developed an extensive
record of Microsoft's conduct, and evidenced various efforts by the
company to maintain and extend its operating system monopoly. Those
findings, I would note, were reaffirmed by a unanimous, and
ideologically diverse Court of Appeals. The Microsoft case--and
its ultimate resolution--present one of the most important
developments in antitrust law in recent memory.
As I have emphasized before, having a monopoly is not illegal
under our laws. In fact, in a successful capitalist system, striving
to be one should be encouraged. However, anticompetitive conduct
intended to maintain or extend this monopoly would harm competition
and could violate our laws. I believe no one would disagree that the
DC Circuit's decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that a
monopolist--even a monopolist in a high-tech industry like
software--must compete on the merits to maintain its monopoly.
Which brings us to today's hearing. We are here to examine the
policy implications of the proposed settlement in the government's
antitrust litigation against Microsoft.
Mr. Chairman, rather than closing the book on the Microsoft
inquiry, the proposed settlement appears to be only the end of the
latest chapter. The settling parties are currently in the middle of
the so-called Tunney Act process before the court. And, the non-
settling parties have chosen to further litigate this matter and
last week filed their own proposed settlement. This has been a
complex case with significant consequences for Microsoft, high-tech
entrepreneurs and the American public. The proposed settlement
between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine of the
plaintiff State attorneys general is highly technical. We have all
been studying it, and its impact, with great interest. Each of us
has heard from some, including some of our witnesses here today,
that the agreement contains much that is very good.
Not surprisingly, we have also heard and read much criticism of
the settlement. These are complex issues, and I would hope today's
hearing will illuminate the many questions we have.
I should note that about two weeks ago, I sent a set of detailed
and extensive questions about the scope, interpretation, and
intended effects of the proposed settlement to the Justice
Department, seeking further information. First, I want to commend
the Department for getting the responses to me promptly.
We received them yesterday. I think the questions, which were
made public, and the Department's responses could be helpful to each
member in forming an independent and fair analysis of the proposed
settlement.
To that end, and for the benefit of the Committee, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to make both the questions and the Department's answers
part of the record for this hearing, if you wouldn't have any
objections.
As I noted in my November 29 letter to the Department, I have
kept an open mind regarding this settlement, and continue to do so.
I have had questions regarding the practical enforceability of the
proposed settlement and whether it will effectively remedy the
unlawful practices identified by the DC Circuit, and restore
competition in the software market.
I am also cognizant of both the limitation of the claims
contained in the original Justice Department complaint by the DC
Circuit, as well as the standards for enforcement under settled
antitrust law. I believe that further information regarding
precisely how the proposed settlement will be interpreted, given DC
Circuit case law, is necessary to any full and objective analysis of
the remedies proposed therein. I hope that this hearing will result
in the development of such information, that would supplement the
questions I put forth to the Department.
Mr. Chairman, one important and critical policy issue that I
would hope we can address today, and that I would like all of our
witness to consider as they wait to be empaneled so that they can
discuss, is the difficult issue of the temporal relation of
antitrust enforcement in new high-technology markets.
It cannot be overemphasized that timing is a critical issue in
examining conduct in the so-called ``new economy.''
Indeed, the most significant lesson the Microsoft case has taught us
is this fact. The DC Circuit found this issue noteworthy enough to
discuss in the first few pages of its opinion. And I will quote from
the unanimous court:
``[w]hat is somewhat problematic.., is that just over six
years have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct
plaintiffs allege to be anticompetitive. As the record in this case
indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer
industry. By the time a court can assess liability, firms, products,
and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically. This,
in turn, threatens enormous practical difficulties for courts
considering the appropriate measure of relief in equitable
enforcement actions ....
[I]nnovation to a large degree has already rendered the
anticompetitive conduct obsolete (although by no means
harmless).''
This issue is one that is relevant for this Committee to
consider as a larger policy
[[Page 30209]]
matter, as well as how it relates to this case and the proposed
settlement we are examining today. Again, I want to thank you Mr.
Chairman for continuing the Committee's important role in high-
technology policy matters, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today.
news from
United States Senator
Democrat of Wisconsin
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 12, 2001
Contact: Lynn Becker or Jessica Carlin
Phone: (202) 224-5653 Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future
This is a pivotal time for competition in the high tech sector
of our economy. After spending more than three years pursuing its
groundbreaking antitrust case against Microsoft--a case that is
likely to rewrite the rules for competiti6n in the high tech
industry for years to come--the government has announced a
settlement--But the crucial question remains--will this
settlement break Microsoft's stranglehold over the computer software
industry and restore competition in this vital sector of the
economy?
Frankly, I have serious doubts that it will. An independent
federal court--both the teal court and the Court of Appeals in
fact--found that Microsoft broke the law and that its
violations should be fixed. This antitrust case was as big as they
come. Microsoft crushed a competitor, illegally tried to maintain
its monopoly, and stifled innovation in this market. Now, after all
these years of litigation, of charges and counter-charges, this
settlement leaves us wondering--did we really accomplish
anything? Or, in the words of the old song, is that all there is?
Does this settlement obey the Supreme Court mandate that it must
deny the antitrust violator ``the fruits'' of its illegal
conduct?
It seems to many--including nine of the states that joined
the federal government in suing Microsoft--that this settlement
agreement simply is not strong enough to do the job--to restore
competition to the computer software industry. It contains so many
loopholes, qualifications and exceptions that many worry that
Microsoft will be easily able to evade its provisions. Let me give
just one example--the. requirement that Microsoft must allow
computer users to install competing software products only applies
with respect to software that has had one million copies distributed
in the last year. New software competitors just are not protected by
this provision.
Today, for the vast majority of computer users, the first thing
they see when they turn on their machine is the now familiar
Microsoft logo, placed on the Microsoft start menu. And all of their
computer operations take place through the filter of Microsoft's
Windows operating system. Microsoft's control over the market is so
strong that today more than 95% of all personal computers run on the
Windows operating system, a market share high enough to constitute a
monopoly under antitrust law. Its share of the Internet browsing
market is now over 85%. It reported a profit margin of 25% in the
most recent quarter, a very high rate of return in challenging
economic times.
Microsoft has the power to dictate terms to manufacturers who
wish to gain access to the Windows operating system and the ability
to leverage its dominance into other forms of computer software. And
Microsoft has never been shy about using its market power. Are we
really confident that, in five years, this settlement will have had
any appreciable impact on these facts of life in the computer
industry?
We today stand on the threshold of writing the rules for
competition in the distal age. We've got two options. One option
involves one dominant company controlling the computer desktop,
facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a
gatekeeper to 95% of all personal computer users. The other model is
the flowering of innovation and new products that resulted from the
break-up of the AT&T telephone monopoly nearly twenty years ago.
From cell phones to faxes, from long distance price wars to the
development of the Internet itself, the end of the telephone
monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and services that
benefit millions of consumers every day. We should insist on nothing
less in this case.
In sum, any settlement in this case should make the market for
computer software at least as competitive as the market for computer
hardware is today. While there's nothing wrong with settling, we
should insist on a settlement that has an immediate, substantial,
and permanent impact on restoring competition in this industry.
OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN
HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON
``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''
December 12, 2001
Ever since the Department of Justice and Microsoft announced, in
early November, their plan to settle the long-running antitrust
litigation, a lot of people have weighed in with their concerns.
This hearing is important because it provides those of us in
Congress with the first real opportunity to examine the terms of the
proposed Microsoft settlement, and to hear from all sides of this
issue. I think it is important that everyone understands what this
settlement means, both in terms of the specific details, and in the
longer term ramifications, before they level any criticism.
It's also important to note that the proceeding is still
ongoing, and that this matter is still before the judge in a
``Tunney Act proceeding.'' So, I hope today's hearing will
shed valuable light on what this settlement means for all of us in
an objective and educational way.
Like me, most of our constituents have owned and used personal
computers for a long time, and most who do own computers utilize
Microsoft Windows PC operating systems. So we are very familiar with
and have gotten quite used to Microsoft products and services. And
it is our constituents who will bear the long-term impact of this
settlement, whatever results that will mean in the market. I hope we
keep that in mind as we scrutinize the terms agreed upon between the
Justice Department, state attorneys general and Microsoft.
I think one of the difficulties that this settlement attempted
to resolve is to try to address problems that arose in the past
while, at the same time, anticipate and regulate potential anti-
competitive conduct in the future.
In a technology industry that is innovative and constantly
evolving, tiffs is obviously a challenge, and I'm sure there are
issues that the settlement could not or did not anticipate. At this
hearing, I'd like to learn what some of these missing issues are.
Another issue of interest to me involves the Internet market.
With the launch of Windows XP--Microsoft's newest operating
system--the issues raised by the original Justice Department
complaint remain salient in determining the scope of the marketplace
for web-based services.
Some opponents of Microsoft throughout the litigation, and even
now with this settlement, have contended that Microsoft intends to
leverage its dominance in the PC marketplace to establish itself as
the player in web-based services. It is unclear to me just how much
of those concerns will be resolved by this settlement, so I look
forward to hearing Microsoft's response.
Finally, I am interested in knowing more about the innovative
enforcement mechanism included in the settlement decree. I
understand that this is probably the most stringent enforcement
requirement ever imposed by the Justice Department in an antitrust
matter. But I don't know how workable it will be for the Justice
Department to remain so intimately involved over the next five years
given how fast the technology industry changes. Five years is an
eternity in the high-tech world. In negotiating this settlement, I
hope that the Department relied on the many lessons it learned from
its experience with the AT&T breakup and the long-term
monitoring that that case involved.
Ultimately, we must find a way to promote competition and choice
in the technology marketplace while continuing to encourage
investment and innovation by this dynamic industry. Reasonable
people can disagree about how we ought to get there.
I am grateful that today's hearing presents us with an
opportunity to hear from knowledgeable witnesses on both sides of
this dispute.
Thank you.
preventing retaliation by Microsoft against those who choose to
develop or use competing middleware products, fully addresses the
legitimate public goals of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct and
restoring competition lost on its account.
Mr. Chairman, a vigorously competitive computer software
industry is vital to our economy, and the Department is committed to
ensuring that it remains competitive. I hope that my testimony has
helped members of the Committee more fully understand why
[[Page 30210]]
the Department is completely satisfied that the proposed consent
decree now before the district court will provide a sufficient and
effective remedy for the anticompetitive conduct in which Microsoft
has been found to have engaged in violation of the Sherman Act. I
would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
Committee may have.
STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
120 B ROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10271
Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
(212) 416-8050
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING ON THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
TESTIMONY OF JAY L. HIMES, CHIEF, ANTITRUST BUREAU OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Washington, DC
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
Chairman Leahy and distinguished Members of this Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the
important issues relating to the settlement of the case against
Microsoft, brought by the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice, 18 States and the District of Columbia. New
York is one of the lead States in this lawsuit, and we have had a
central role in the matter going back to the investigation that led
to the filing of the case.
As the members of the Committee know, on Friday, November 2,
2001, the DOJ and Microsoft reached a proposed settlement of the
lawsuit, which was then publicly announced. After further
negotiations between Microsoft and the States, a revised settlement
was reached on Tuesday, November 6, 2001. New York--together
with the States of Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin--agreed to the
revised settlement. The remaining State plaintiffs--California,
Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah,
West Virginia and the District of Columbia--are seeking a
judicially ordered remedy, as is their right.
I, together with an Assistant Attorney General from the State of
Ohio, were the principal representatives of the States in the
lengthy negotiations that led to the proposed final judgment
embodying the settlement. Therefore, I believe that we in New York
see the Microsoft settlement from a vantage point that others who
were not in the negotiating room may lack. I will do my best to try
to share our observations with the Committee. I will begin by
presenting an overview of the lawsuit and the settlement reached.
After that, I will address in more detail several of the central
features of the settlement. Then, I wish to turn to the settlement
process itself, particularly insofar as it bears on criticism of the
proposed final judgment.
1. Overview of the Case and the Settlement
In May 1998, New York, 18 other States and the District of
Columbia began a lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws.\1\ The States' case was similar to
an antitrust case commenced that same day by DOJ, and the two cases
proceeded on a consolidated basis. In summary, the litigation
against Microsoft charged that the company unlawfully restrained
trade and denied consumers choice by: (1) monopolizing the market
for personal computer (``PC'') operating systems; (2)
bundling (or ``tying'') Internet
Explorer--Microsoft's web browser--into the Windows
operating system used on most PCs; (3) entering into arrangements
with various industry members that excluded competitive software;
and (4) attempting to monopolize the market for web browsers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequently, one State (South Carolina) dropped out,
and another (New Mexico) settled earlier this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a lengthy trial, the District Court upheld the
governments' claims that Microsoft had unlawfully: (1) maintained a
monopoly in the PC operating system market; (2) tied Internet
Explorer to its Windows operating system monopoly; and (3) attempted
to monopolize the browser market. The District Court issued a final
judgment breaking up Microsoft into two separate businesses, and
ordering certain conduct remedies intended to govern Microsoft's
business activities pending completion of the break-up. These
remedies were stayed while Microsoft appealed.
In June of this year, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision on appeal. United States v.
Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001). The Court of Appeals
broadly upheld the lower court's monopolization maintenance ruling,
although it rejected a few of the acts of monopolization found by
the District Court including the Court's determination that
Microsoft's overall course of conduct itself amounted to monopoly
maintenance. On the tying claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the
lower court's holding of an antitrust violation, and ordered a new
trial under the rule of reason a--standard more favorable to
Microsoft than the standard previously used by the trial court. In
view of these rulings, the Circuit Court vacated the final judgment,
including the break-up provisions. Finally, the Court of Appeals
disqualified the trial judge from hearing further proceedings.
Thereafter, the Court of Appeals denied a rehearing petition by
Microsoft, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by
Microsoft concerning the Court of Appeals' disqualification ruling.
The Court of Appeals returned the case to the District Court in
late August of this year. At that point, a new judge--Hon.
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly--was assigned. Shortly after that, DOJ
and the States announced their intention, in the forthcoming
proceedings before the District Court, to refrain from seeking
another break up order--and to focus instead on conduct
remedies modeled on those included in the earlier District Court
judgment. DOJ and the States also announced that the{time} , would
not re-try the tying claim under the rule of reason test that the
Court of Appeals had adopted. These decisions by the government
enforcers were made in an effort to jump-start the process of
promptly obtaining a strong and effective remedy for Microsoft's
anticompetitive conduct, as upheld by the Court of Appeals'
decision.
The parties appeared before Judge Kollar-Kotelly for the first
time at a conference held on September 28, 2001. The Court directed
the parties to begin a settlement negotiation and mediation process,
which would end on November 2. Specifically, the Court noted that
``I expect [the parties] to engage in settlement discussions
seven days a week around the clock in order to see if they can
resolve this case.'' (Transcript of September 28, 2001
proceedings, page 5) The Court also adopted a detailed schedule
governing the proceedings leading to a heating on remedies, which
the Court tentatively set for March 2002, if no settlement could be
reached.
The settlement process that the District Court thus set in
motion resulted in a proposed final judgment agreed to by Microsoft,
DOJ and nine of the plaintiff States. The overarching objective of
this settlement is to increase the choices available to consumers
(including business users) who seek to buy PCs by promoting
competition in the computer and computer software industries. More
specifically (and as I will explain further below), the proposed
final judgment includes the following means to increase consumer
choice and industry competition:
� Microsoft will be prohibited from using various
forms of conduct to punish or discourage industry participants from
developing and offering products that compete or could compete with
the Windows operating system, or with Microsoft software running on
Windows.
� Microsoft will be prohibited from restricting the
ability of computer manufacturers to make significant changes to
Windows, thereby encouraging manufacturers to offer consumers more
choice in the features included in PCs available for purchase.
� Microsoft will be required to disclose significant
technical information that will help industry participants to
develop and offer products that work well with Windows, and, in this
way, potentially aid in the development of products that will
compete with Windows itself.
� Microsoft will be subject to on-site scrutiny by a
specially selected three-person committee, charged with
responsibility to assist in enforcing Microsoft's obligations under
the settlement, and to help resolve complaints and inquiries that
arise by virtue of the settlement.
New York decided to settle the Microsoft case because we believe
that the deal hammered out over the many weeks of negotiations will
generate a more competitive marketplace for consumers and businesses
throughout the country, and, indeed, throughout the world. In
summary, the settlement that the parties have submitted to the
District Court for approval will accomplish the following:
2. Empowering Computer Manufacturers to Offer Choices to Consumers
First, the proposed final judgment will empower computer
manufacturers--the ``OEMs'' to--offer products
that give consumers choice. Under the settlement,
[[Page 30211]]
OEMs have the opportunity to add competing middleware to the Windows
operating system in place of middleware included by Microsoft.
(Section III, paragraphs C and H) \2\ Middleware here refers
not only to software like the Netscape browser, one of the subjects
of the liability trial, but also to other important PC functions,
such as email, instant messaging, or the media players that enable
consumers to receive audio and visual content from the Internet.
(Section VI, paragraphs K and M) \3\ Middleware is important,
in the context of this case, because it may help break down barriers
that protect Microsoft's Windows monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Parenthetical references are to Revised Proposed Final
Judgment attached to the Stipulation, dated November 6, 2001(the
``November 6 Stipulation''), in United States v. Microsoft
Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)(D.DC), and State of New
York v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)(D.DC)
(together ``Microsoft'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government negotiators insisted on, and eventually obtained,
a broad definition of middleware so that the proposed decree covers
both existing middleware and middleware not currently in existence,
but which Microsoft and its competitors may develop during the term
of the decree. The reason for our pressing a broad definition is
plain enough: the broader the definition of middleware, the more
software covered by the settlement, and the greater the opportunity
for a software product to develop in a fashion that challenges the
Windows monopoly.
Under the proposed decree, OEMs will have the ability to
customize the PC's that they offer. They may, for example, add icons
launching both competing middleware--and products that use
competing middleware--to the Windows desktop or Start menu, and
to other places in the Windows operating system. OEMs also will have
the ability to suppress the existence of the competing middleware
that Microsoft included in the Windows operating system licensed to
the OEM. Microsoft itself will have to redesign Windows to the
extent needed to permit this sort of substitution of middleware, and
to ensure that the OEMs' customization of Windows is honored.
(Section III, paragraphs C and H) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For ease of exposition, I refer in this testimony to
``middleware'' as a generic term. In the proposed final
judgment itself, there are four related middleware definitions,
which are associated with various substantive provisions in the
decree. (See Section VI, paragraphs J, K, M, N; Section IV(A) of the
Competitive Impact Statement, dated November 15, 2001, filed in
Microsoft.)
\4\ PC users themselves will have a similar ability to
customize Windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The options available to OEMs under the settlement mean that the
Windows desktop is up for sale. Companies offering a package of
features that includes middleware, and middleware developers
themselves, who desire to put their product into the hands of
consumers can go to OEMs and buy a part of the real estate that the
Windows desk top represents. This opportunity for additional revenue
should further empower OEMs to develop competing computer products
that offer choice to consumers.
The OEMs' ability to offer consumers competing middleware is
backed up by a broad provision that prohibits Microsoft from
``retaliating'' against OEMs for any decision to install
competing middleware (as well as any operating system that competes
with Windows). (Section III, paragraph A) This provision forbids
Microsoft from altering any of its commercial relations with an OEM,
or from denying an OEM a wide array of product support or
promotional benefits, based on the OEM's efforts to offer
competitive alternatives. (Section VI, paragraph C)
Then, to back up the non-retaliation provision, Microsoft also
is required to license Windows to its 20 largest OEMs (who comprise
roughly 70% of new PC sales) under uniform, non-discriminatory
terms. (Section III, paragraph B) Microsoft also is prohibited from
terminating any of its 20 largest OEMs for Windows licensing
violations without first giving the OEM notice and an opportunity to
cure the alleged violation. (Section III, paragraph A)
3. Empowering Software Developers and Others to Offer Competing
Middleware
Second, the proposed final judgment seeks to encourage
independent software developers--referred to as
``ISVs''--to write competing middleware. This is
accomplished by forbidding Microsoft from retaliating against any
ISV based on the ISV's efforts to introduce competing middleware or
a competing operating system into the market. (Section III,
paragraph F) The literally thousands of ISVs in the industry are
protected by this additional non-retaliation provision, and they are
protected whether or not they have an on-going business relationship
with Microsoft.
ISVs, and many other industry participants, are further
protected by provisions that prohibit Microsoft from entering into
exclusive dealing arrangements relating to middleware or operating
systems. Exclusive dealing arrangements are a device that Microsoft
used to deny competitors access to the distribution lines needed to
enable their products to gain acceptance in the marketplace.
(Section III, paragraphs F, G) We have effectively closed off that
practice to Microsoft.
4. Requiring Microsoft to Disclose Information to Facilitate
Interoperation
Third, the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft to provide
the technical information--``interfaces'' and
``protocols''--that industry members need to enable
competing middleware to work well with Windows. Middleware uses
functions of the Windows operating system through connections or
``hooks'' called ``applications programming
interfaces''--``APIs'' for short. Microsoft will
now be required to disclose the APIs that its own middleware uses to
interoperate with Windows, and to provide technical documents
relating to those APIs, so that ISVs who wish to develop competing
middleware will have the information needed to make their products
work well with Windows. (Section III, paragraph D)
This is, again, a place where the broad definition of
middleware, covering both existing and yet to be developed products,
matters. (Section VI, paragraph J) The broader the definition, the
greater the number of APIs that Microsoft must disclose and
document. The greater the technical information made available, the
greater the likelihood that industry participants will be able to
develop competing middleware that works well on Windows.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Strictly speaking, if Microsoft refrains from
separately distributing a particular middleware product included in
Windows, it need not disclose the APIs used by that middleware
product. But powerful business considerations militate against
Microsoft adopting a strategy in which only purchasers of new PCs,
or of box-packaged versions of Windows, receive a middleware product
offered by Microsoft. Under such a strategy, Microsoft would be
unable to supply the middleware product to any of the millions of
Windows users worldwide who comprise its installed user base.
Microsoft would thereby put itself at a competitive disadvantage as
suppliers of competing middleware offered attractive product
features to the installed base of Windows users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed decree goes beyond requiring disclosure of APIs
between Windows and Microsoft middleware. More and more, at-home
consumers and computer users in the workplace can obtain
functionality that they need from either the Internet or from
network servers operating in a business setting. This trend means
that computer applications running on servers may be an emerging
location for developing middleware that could challenge the Windows
monopoly at the PC level. Thus, the settlement is designed to
prevent Microsoft from using Windows to gain competitive advantages
in the way that PCs talk to servers. This is accomplished by
requiring Microsoft to disclose, via a licensing mechanism, what are
called ``protocols'' used to enable PCs and servers to
communicate with each other. (Section III, paragraph E)
This particular provision--sometimes referred to as the
``client/server interoperability'' section--was
especially important to the States. The provision included in the
November 2 version of the final judgment between the DOJ and
Microsoft did not seem to us in New York to go quite as far as we
felt it needed to go. As a result, this was a place that we and
other States focused on in the negotiations leading to the revised
settlement signed on November 6. The changes that resulted did not
involve many words, but we believe that they enhanced Microsoft's
disclosure obligations in this critical area.
5. The Enforcement Mechanism
The subject matter of the Microsoft lawsuit is complex, and so
too are many parts of the remedy embodied in the final judgment.
This complexity creates the potential for good faith disagreement,
as well as for intentional evasion. For this reason, from the outset
of the settlement negotiations, New York held to the view that
enforcement provisions going beyond those typically found in
antitrust decrees would be needed here. We worked closely with DOJ
to achieve this objective. What you find in the proposed final
judgment is an enforcement mechanism that we believe is
unprecedented in any antitrust case.
The proposed consent decree expressly recognizes the
``exclusive responsibility'' of the United States DOJ and
the antitrust officials of the settling States to enforce the final
judgment against Microsoft. (Section IV, paragraph A (1)) To assist
this federal and state enforcement and compliance effort, the
proposed decree will create a three person body, the
``Technical Committee'' or ``TC.'' (Section IV,
paragraph B) The TC is
[[Page 30212]]
empowered, among other things: (1) to interview any Microsoft
personnel; (2) to obtain copies of any Microsoft
documents--including Microsoft's source code--and access
to any Microsoft systems, equipment and physical facilities; and (3)
to require Microsoft to provide compilations of documents, data and
other information, and to prepare reports for the TC. (Section IV,
paragraph B(8)(b), (c)) The TC itself is authorized to hire staff
and consultants to carry out its responsibilities. (Section IV,
paragraph B(8)(h)) Microsoft also is required to provide permanent
office space and office support facilities for the TC at its
Redmond, Washington campus. (Section IV, paragraph B(7))
In other words, for the five year term of the decree, the TC
will be the on-site eyes and ears of the government enforcers. The
TC and government enforcers may communicate with each other as often
as they need to, and the TC may obtain advice or assistance from the
enforcers on any matter within the TC's purview. In addition, the TC
is subject to specific reporting requirements--every six
months, or immediately if the TC finds any violation of the decree.
(Section IV, paragraph B(8)(e), (f)) The TC further will be expected
to field and promptly resolve complaints and inquiries from industry
members, or from government enforcers themselves. (Section IV,
paragraph B(8)(d), paragraph D)
All of this will be paid for by Microsoft, subject to possible
review by federal and state officials, or the Court. To discourage
Microsoft from mounting dubious court challenges to the TC's costs
and expenses, the proposed decree authorizes the TC to recover its
litigation expenses, including attorneys' fees, unless the Court
expressly finds that the TC's opposition was ``without
substantial justification.'' (Section IV, paragraph B(8)(i))
These enforcement provisions are probably the strongest ever
crafted in an antitrust case. Federal and state enforcers will have
at their disposal their regular enforcement powers, which may be
invoked at any time independent of anything that the TC may do.
(Section IV, paragraph A(2), (4)) Meanwhile, the TC will augment
these traditional powers in significant respects. In addition,
Microsoft itself is required to appoint an internal compliance
officer to assist in assuring discharge of the company's obligations
under the settlement. (Section IV, paragraph C)
I am mindful that concern has been expressed regarding the
enforcement provision that ``[n]o work product, findings or
recommendations of the TC may be admitted in any enforcement
proceeding before the Court. . . . ``(Section IV,
paragraph D(4)(d)) But the impact of this provision should not be
great. As noted, 15 the TC may report to the government enforcers,
who may use the TC's work to seek from Microsoft a consensual
resolution of, for example, any non-compliant conduct, to initiate
(and inevitably shortcut) enforcement-looking activity, to pursue
leads, and for other enforcement purposes. Moreover, the TC's work
product, once known, should be readily susceptible of prompt
replication by enforcement officials for use in judicial
proceedings.
6. The Settlement Process
As the very fact of these hearings attests, the proposed
settlement of the Microsoft case is a subject of significant public
interest and debate. For years, many have asserted that the case
itself should never have been filed to begin with. For these
individuals, the government should be satisfied to get any remedy at
all. We in New York profoundly disagree with this view. As the
liability trial and appeal confirmed, this case was properly brought
to remedy serious anticompetitive activity by Microsoft. The trial
and appellate proceedings further confirmed that the antitrust laws
are alive and well in technological industries, just as they are in
other parts of our nation's economy. Accordingly, the public is
entitled to a strong, effective remedy.
In this regard, however, some have criticized the settlement for
not going far enough, or for having exceptions and limitations. We
reject this view as well.
In announcing the decision by New York and eight other States to
settle the case, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer noted that
``a settlement is never perfect.'' A settlement is an
agreed-upon resolution of competing positions and objectives. Do I
wish that the DOJ and the States had gotten more? Of course I do. Do
our counterparts on the Microsoft side wish that they had given up
less? There is no doubt about the answer. So, asking these questions
does not take us very far. Settlement necessarily means compromise.
It is in the nature of the beast.
This particular settlement is the product of roughly five weeks
of consuming negotiations, much of which took place under the
guidance of two experienced mediators. I am unaware of any
calculation of the total person-hours consumed by this effort.
Certainly it was in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
hours. The process required the two sides to explore, both
internally and in face-to-face negotiations, a host of factors that
bear on terms of the settlement eventually reached, such as: (1) the
competitive consequences of varying courses of action; (2) the
design, engineering and practical implications and limitations of
various remedy approaches, as well as their impact on innovation
incentives; (3) the issues actually framed for trial in the
liability phase of the case and their resolution by the Court of
Appeals; (4) the law governing remedies for the monopoly maintenance
violation that the Court of Appeals upheld, which the District Court
would be called on to apply in the absence of a settlement; and (5)
the resources, effort and time otherwise needed to resolve the sharp
factual disputes that would be presented in a full-blown remedies
hearing. New York and the other States, as well as the DOJ, were
aided in this process by experienced staff and retained experts.
In the final analysis, the DO J, New York and the other settling
States concluded that the benefits to consumers and to the
competitive process that are likely to result from the negotiated
settlement reached here outweigh the uncertain remedy that a
contested remedies proceeding might bring. In assessing the
soundness of that conclusion, the members of the Committee should
recall that the settlement's critics have a luxury that those of us
who settled did not have: they have the settlement floor created by
the final judgment that we have offered. Absent this settlement,
however, a judicial remedies hearing had not simply potential
rewards, but significant risks as well.
During the September 28 court conference, the District Court
expressed its views regarding the appropriate scope of the conduct
remedies that might emerge from a judicial hearing on relief. Among
other things, the District Court stated the following:
The Supreme Court long ago stated that it's entirely appropriate
for a district court to order a remedy which goes beyond a simple
prescription against the precise conduct previously pursued.
. . . The Supreme Court has vested this court with large
discretion to fashion appropriate restraints both to avoid a
recurrence of the violation and to eliminate its consequences. Now,
case law in the antitrust field establishes that the exercise of
discretion necessitates choosing from a range of alternatives.
So the government's first and most obvious task is going to be
to determine which portions of the former judgment remain
appropriate in light of the appellate court's ruling and which
portions are unsupported following the appellate court's narrowing
of liability.
Now, the scope of any proposed remedy must be carefully crafted
so as to ensure that the enjoining conduct falls within the number
[sic, penumbra] of behavior which was found to be anticompetitive.
The government will also have to be cautiously attentive to the
efficacy of every element of the proposed relief.
(Transcript of September 28, 2001 proceedings, pages 9, 8)
These remarks highlight risks that both sides confronted if the
decision were made to press for a court-ordered remedy. Several
concrete examples, from the settlement actually reached, will
further drive home this point.
� Microsoft's API disclosure obligations, and its
obligations to permit OEMs to customize the Windows desktop and
operating system more generally, revolve around a series of related
middleware definitions that the parties agreed to. Absent a
settlement, there could no assurance that 19 the courts would adopt
middleware definitions as broad as those that DOJ and the settling
States negotiated.
The liability trial in the case centered on Microsoft's conduct
directed to efforts by Netscape and Sun to get Netscape's web
browser and Sun's Java technologies installed on individual PCs.
Plaintiffs' theory of the case which the trial and appellate courts
upheld was that these forms of middleware could, if sufficiently
pervasive at the PC level, erode the applications barrier to entry
that protects Microsoft's Windows monopoly. Microsoft therefore set
out to exclude this middleware from PCs. In the settlement
negotiations leading to the client/server interoperability
provision, the government negotiators argued that applications
running at the server level can be analogous to middleware running
at the PC level. On this
[[Page 30213]]
approach, middleware developed at the server level could also break
down the applications barrier to entry into the PC operating system
market. Therefore, the remedy in this case requires Microsoft to
disclose ways that PCs running Windows talk to servers running
Microsoft software. Absent a settlement, however, there could be no
assurance that the courts would order disclosure of this PC/server
line of communications. Microsoft resisted this provision 20 during
the settlement negotiations, and would similarly have opposed it at
a remedies hearing.
Finally, as i noted above, there does not seem to be any
antitrust precedent for an enforcement mechanism that puts a monitor
on site, with full access to the defendant's documents, employees,
systems and physical facilities--all at the defendant's
expense. Absent a settlement, Microsoft would have vigorously
opposed such a far-reaching enforcement regime, and there plainly
could be no assurance that the courts would have ordered comparable
relief.
As these examples reflect, I believe that the proposed final
judgment compares favorably to--and in some respects may well
exceed--the remedy that might have emerged from a judicial
hearing.
The existence of a settlement has also accelerated the point in
time at which a remedy will begin to take effect. Microsoft has
agreed to begin complying with the proposed final judgment starting
on December 16, 200I. (November 6 Stipulation, paragraph 2) Assuming
further that the District Court approves the proposed final judgment
in Tunney Act proceedings in early 2002, there will be a remedy in
place a year or more before the trial and appellate level
proceedings, needed to resolve the appropriate remedy in the absence
of a settlement, would be concluded. In this rapidly changing sector
of the industry, the timeliness of a remedy is an important
consideration.
6. Conclusion
In sum, the settlement in the Microsoft case promotes
competition and consumer choice. It is proportionate to the monopoly
maintenance violations that the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit sustained. The settlement represents a fair and
reasonable vindication of the public interest in assuring the free
and open competition that our nation's antitrust laws guarantee.
Microsoft is reported recently to have issued a companywide
email stating its commitment to making the settlement ``a
success'' and to ``ensuring that everyone at Microsoft
complies fully with the terms'' of the decree. D. Ian Hopper,
Associated Press State & Local Wire (Nov. 30, 2001). We expect
nothing less, and we intend to see to it that Microsoft honors that
commitment. New York is one of the members of the States'
enforcement committee, created under the proposed decree. Our State
Antitrust Bureau will be vigilant in monitoring Microsoft's
discharge of its obligations, and we look forward to working closely
with the DOJ to make sure that the settlement is, indeed, a success.
The American public is entitled to nothing less.
Statement of Charles F. (Rick) Rule, Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
Jacobson, Counsel for Microsoft Corporation
Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, December
12, 2001
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. It is a
pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of Microsoft
Corporation to discuss the proposed consent decree or Revised
Proposed Final Judgment (the ``PFJ'') to which the U.S.
Department of Justice and nine of the plaintiff states have agreed.
As this committee is aware, I am counsel to Microsoft in the case
and was one of the principal representatives for the company in the
negotiations that led to the proposed consent decree.
The PFJ was signed on November 6th after more than a month of
intense, around-the-clock negotiations with the Department and
representatives of all the plaintiff states. The decree is currently
subject to a public interest review by Judge Kollar-Kotelly under
the Tunney Act.\1\ Because we are currently in the midst of that
review and because nine states and the District of Columbia have
chosen to continue the litigation, I must be somewhat circumspect in
my remarks. However, what I can--indeed, must--stress is
that, in light of the Court of Appeals' decision last summer to
``drastically'' reduce the scope of Microsoft's liability
and in light of the legal standards for imposing injunctive relief,
the Department and the settling states were very effective in
negotiating for broad, strong relief. As the chart in the appendix
depicts, ever since the Department and the plaintiff states first
filed their complaints in May 1998, the case has been shrinking.
What began with five claims, was whittled down to a single monopoly
maintenance claim by a unanimous Court of Appeals. Even with respect
to that surviving claim, the appellate court affirmed Judge
Jackson's findings on only about a third (12 0f35) of the specific
acts which the district court had found support that claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that history and the law, there is no reasonable argument
that the PFJ is too narrow or that it fails to achieve all the
relief to which the Department was entitled. In fact, as these
remarks explain, the opposite is true--faced with tough,
determined negotiators on the other side of the table, Microsoft
agreed to a decree that goes substantially beyond what the
plaintiffs were likely to achieve through litigation. Quite frankly,
the PFJ is the strongest, most regulatory conduct decree ever
obtained (through litigation or settlement) by the Department.
Why then, one might ask, would Microsoft consent to such a
decree? There are two reasons. First, the company felt strongly that
it was important to put this matter behind it and to move forward
constructively with its customers, its business partners, and the
government. For four years, the litigation has consumed enormous
resources and been a serious distraction. The constant media
drumbeat has obscured the fact that the company puts a premium on
adhering to its legal obligations and on developing and maintaining
excellent relationships with its partners and customers. Litigation
is never a pleasant experience, and given the magnitude of this case
and the media attention it attracted, it is hard to imagine any more
costly, unpleasant civil litigation.
Second, while the Department pushed Microsoft to make
substantial, even excessive concessions to get a settlement, there
were limits to how far the company was willing or able to go
(limits, by the way, which the Department and the settling states
managed to reach). Microsoft was fighting for an important
principle--the ability to innovate and improve its products and
services for the benefit of consumers. To that end, Microsoft
insisted that the decree be written in a way to allow the company to
engage in legitimate competition on the merits. Despite the
substantial burdens the decree will impose on Microsoft and the
numerous ways in which Microsoft will be forced to alter its
conduct, the decree does preserve Microsoft's ability to innovate,
to improve its products, and to engage in procompetitive business
conduct that is necessary for the company to survive.
In short, at the end of the negotiations, Microsoft concluded
that the very real costs that the decree imposes on the company are
outweighed by the benefits, not just to Microsoft but to the PC
industry and consumers generally.
Tile Court of Appeals' ``Road Map ``for Relief
In order to evaluate the decree, one must first appreciate the
history of this case and how drastically the scope of Microsoft's
liability was narrowed at the appellate level. When this case began
with the filing of separate complaints by the Department and the
plaintiff states in May of 1998, it was focused on Microsoft's
integration of browsing functionality called Internet Explorer or IE
into Windows 98, which the plaintiffs alleged to be an illegal tying
arrangement.
The complaints of the Department and the states included five
separate claims: (1) a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act that
the tie-in was per se illegal; (2) another claim under section 1
that certain promotion and distribution agreements with Internet
service providers (ISPs), Internet content providers (ICPs), and on-
line service providers (OSPs) constituted illegal exclusive dealing;
(3) a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act that Microsoft had
attempted to monopolize Web browsing software; (4) a catch-all claim
under section 2 that the alleged conduct that underlay the first
three claims amounted to illegal maintenance of Microsoft's monopoly
in PC operating systems; and (5) a claim by the plaintiff states
(but not part of the Department's complaint) under section 2 that
Microsoft illegally ``leveraged'' its monopoly in PC
operating systems.\2\ As discovery got underway, the case
dramatically expanded as the plaintiffs indiscriminately began
identifying all manner of Microsoft conduct as examples of
[[Page 30214]]
the company's illegal efforts to maintain its monopoly. But then,
the case began to shrink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Initially the plaintiff states included an additional
section 2 claim based on Microsoft Office; however, they voluntarily
dropped that claim in their amended complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Microsoft's motion for summary judgment, the
district court dismissed the states' Monopoly leveraging claim
(claim 5).
After trial, Judge Jackson held that the plaintiffs failed to
prove that Microsoft's arrangements with ISPs, ICPs, and OSPs
violated section 1 (claim 2).
Judge Jackson did, however, conclude that the plaintiffs had
sustained their claims that Microsoft illegally tied IE to Windows
(claim 1), illegally attempted to monopolize the browser market
(claim 3), and illegally maintained its monopoly (claim 4), basing
his decision on 35 different actions engaged in by Microsoft.
In a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc,
the court reversed the trial court on the attempted monopolization
claim (claim 3) and remanded with instructions that judgment be
entered on that claim in favor of Microsoft.
The unanimous court also reversed Judge Jackson's decision with
respect to the tie-in claim (claim 1). The appellate court held
that, in light of the prospect of consumer benefit from integrating
new functionality into platform software such as Windows,
Microsoft's integration of IE into Windows had to be judged under
the rule of reason rather than the per se approach taken by Judge
Jackson. The Court of Appeals refused to apply the per se approach
because of ``our qualms about redefining the boundaries of a
defendant's product and the possibility of consumer gains from
simplifying the work of applications developers [by ensuring the
ubiquitous dissemination of compatible APIs].'' The court's
decision did allow the plaintiffs on remand to pursue the tie-in
claim on a rule of reason theory; however, shortly after the remand,
the plaintiffs announced they were dropping the tie-in claim.
With respect to the only remaining claim (monopoly
maintenance--claim 4), the Court of Appeals affirmed in part
and reversed in part the lower court and substantially shrank
Microsoft's liability. After articulating a four-step burden-
shifting test that is highly fact intensive, the appellate court
reviewed the 35 different factual bases for liability and rejected
nearly two-thirds of them.
In the case of seven of those 35 findings (concerning such
conduct as Microsoft's refusal to allow OEMs to replace the Windows
desktop, Microsoft's design of Windows to ``override the user's
choice of a default browser,'' and Microsoft's development of a
Java virtual machine (JVM) that was incompatible with Sun's JVM),
the appellate court specifically reversed Judge Jackson's decision.
At the time Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into
intensive negotiations, she clearly recognized the importance of the
drastic alteration to the scope of Microsoft's liability.\6\ The
judge informed the government that its ``first and most obvious
task is going to be to determine which portions of the former
judgment remain appropriate in light of the appellate court's ruling
and which portions are unsupported following the appellate court's
narrowing of liability.'' \7\ The judge went on to note
that ``the scope of any proposed remedy must be carefully
crafted so as to ensure that the enjoining conduct falls within the
[penumbra] of behavior which was found to be
anticompetitive.'' \8\ The judge also stated that
``Microsoft argues that some of the terms of the former
judgment are no longer appropriate, and that is correct. I think
there are certain portions where the liability has been
narrowed.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This hearing, it should be noted, occurred after the
plaintiffs had dropped their request for divestiture relief.
\7\ Transcript of Scheduling Conference before the
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, September 28, 2001, at 8.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before discussing the negotiations and the decree itself, I
would like to make three other points about the crafting of
antitrust remedies that also are relevant to considering the relief
to which the plaintiffs were entitled. First, the critics of the PFJ
routinely ignore the fact that the Department has long acknowledged
that Microsoft lawfully acquired its monopoly position in PC
operating systems. Indeed, the Department retained a Nobel laureate
in the first Microsoft case in 1994 to submit an affidavit to the
district court opining that Microsoft had reached its position in PC
operating systems through luck, skill, and foresight.\10\ It is true
of course that Microsoft has now been found liable for engaging in
conduct that amounted to illegal efforts to maintain that position;
however, there is precious little in the record establishing any
causal link between the twelve illegal acts of ``monopoly
maintenance'' and Microsoft's current position in the market
for PC operating systems. Thus, contrary to the critics' overheated
rhetoric, there is no basis for relief designed to terminate an
``illegal monopoly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Declaration of Kenneth J. Arrow was attached as
an exhibit to the Memorandum of the United States in Support of
Motion to Enter Final Judgment, filed on January 18, 1995, with the
District Court in support of the Department's 1994 consent decree
with Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, decrees in civil antitrust cases are designed to remedy,
not to punish. All too often, the critics of this decree speak as
though Microsoft was convicted of a crime. It was not. This is a
civil case, subject to the rules of civil rather than criminal
procedure. To the extent the plaintiffs tried to get relief that
could be deemed punitive, that relief would have been rejected.
Third, a decree must serve the purposes of the antitrust laws,
which is a ``consumer welfare prescription.'' I realize we
are in the ``season of giving,'' but an antitrust decree
is not a Christmas tree to fulfill the wishes of competitors,
particularly where that fulfillment comes at the expense of consumer
welfare. Calls for royalty-free licensing of Microsoft's
intellectual property, or for imposing obligations on Microsoft to
distribute third part{time} , software at no charge, or for
Microsoft to facilitate the distribution of an infinite variety of
bastardized versions of Windows (and make sure they all run
perfectly) are great for a small group of competitors who know that
such provisions will quickly destroy Microsoft's incentives and
ability to compete (not to mention violate the Constitution's
proscription against ``takings'').
Such calls, however, are anathema to consumers' interests in a
dynamic, innovative computer industry. Twenty years ago, my old boss
and antitrust icon, Bill Baxter, warned about the anticompetitive
consequences of antitrust decrees designed simply to ``add sand
to the saddlebags'' of a particularly fleet competitor like
Microsoft. It's a warning the courts would certainly heed today.
To their credit, the negotiators for the Department and the
settling states understood these three fundamental antitrust
principles. While we may have had to remind the other side of these
principles from time to time, we did not have to negotiate for their
adherence to them. Taxpayers and consumers can be proud that their
interests were represented by honorable men and women with the
utmost respect for the rule of law. For others to insinuate that, by
agreeing to a decree that honors these three fundamental principles,
the Department and the settling states ``caved'' or
settled for inadequate relief is as offensive as it is laughable.
The Negotiations
It is against the background I have sketched that, on September
27th, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into intensive,
``around the clock'' negotiations. Microsoft had already
indicated publicly its strong desire to try to settle the case, and
so it welcomed the judge's order. As has been widely reported, all
the parties in the case took the court's order very seriously.
Microsoft assembled in Washington, DC, a core team of in-house and
outside lawyers who have been living with this case for years, and
who spent virtually all of the next five weeks camped out in my
offices down the street. Microsoft's top legal officer was in town
during much of the period directing the negotiations. Back in
Redmond, the company's most senior executives devoted a great deal
of time and energy to the process, and we were all supported by a
large group of dedicated lawyers, businesspeople, and staff.
From my vantage point, the Department and the states (at least
those that settled) made an equivalent effort. As the mediator wrote
after the process ended, ``No party was left out of the
negotiations. . . . Throughout most of the mediation the
19 states (through their executive committee representatives) and
the federal government (through the staff of the antitrust division)
worked as a combined ``plaintiffs' team.'' \11\ Jay
Himes from the office of the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
and Beth Finnerty from the office of the Ohio Attorney General Betty
Montgomery represented the states throughout the negotiations,
putting in the same long hours as the rest of us. At various points
Mr. Himes and Ms. Finnerty were joined by representatives from other
states,
[[Page 30215]]
including Kevin O'Connor from the office of Wisconsin Attorney
General James Doyle.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Eric D. Green and Jonathan B. Marks, How We Mediated
the Microsoft Case, Boston Globe, at A23 (November 15, 2001).
\12\ Mr. O'Connor, as well as attorneys in the office of
the New York Attorney General, had served as counsel of record for
the states in the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The negotiations began on September 28th and continued virtually
non-stop until November 6th. During the first two weeks, we
negotiated without the benefit of a mediator. As they say in
diplomatic circles, the discussions were ``full and
frank.'' The Department lawyers and the state representatives
in the negotiation were extremely knowledgeable, diligent, and
formidable.
Microsoft certainly hoped to be able to reach a settlement
quickly and before a mediator was designated. However, the views on
all sides were sufficiently strong and the need to pay attention to
every sentence, phrase, and punctuation mark so overwhelming that
reaching agreement proved impossible in those first two weeks. Eric
Green, a prominent mediation specialist, was appointed by the court
and with the help of Jonathan Marks spent the next three weeks
helping the parties find common ground. As Professor Green and Mr.
Marks wrote after the mediation ended,
``Successful mediations are ones in which mediators and
parties work to identify and overcome barriers to reaching
agreement. Successful mediations are ones in which all the parties
engage in reasoned discussions of issues that divide them, of
options for settlement, and of the risks, opportunities, and costs
that each party faces if a settlement isn't reached. Successful
mediations are ones in which, settle or not, senior representatives
of each party have made informed and intelligent decisions. The
Microsoft mediation was successful.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Green and Marks, supra fn. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working day and night virtually until the original November 2
deadline set by the judge, Microsoft and the Department agreed to
and signed a decree early on November 2. The representatives of the
states also tentatively agreed, subject to an opportunity from
November 2 until November 6 to confer with the other states that
were more removed from the case and negotiations. During that
period, the states requested several clarifying modifications to
which Microsoft (and the Department) agreed. From press reports, it
appears that during this period the plaintiff states also were being
subjected to intense lobbying by a few of Microsoft's competitors
who were desperate either to get a decree that would severely
cripple if not eventually destroy Microsoft or at least to keep the
litigation (and the attendant costs imposed on Microsoft) going.
Notwithstanding that pressure, New York, Wisconsin, and
Ohio--the states that had made the largest investment in
litigating against Microsoft and in negotiating a
settlement--along with six other plaintiff states represented
by a bipartisan group of state attorneys general signed onto the
Revised PFJ on November 6.
The Proposed Final Judgment
Throughout the negotiations, Microsoft was confronted by a
determined and tough group of negotiators for the Department and the
states. They made clear that there would be no settlement unless
Microsoft went well beyond the relief to which, Microsoft believes,
the Court of Appeals opinion and the law entitles the plaintiffs.
Once that became clear, Microsoft relented in significant ways,
subject only to narrow language that preserved Microsoft's ability
to innovate and engage in normal, clearly procompetitive activities.
Professor Green, the one neutral observer of this drama, has noted
the broad scope of the prohibitions and obligations imposed on
Microsoft by the PFJ, stating during the status conference with
Judge Kollar-Kotelly that ``the parties have not stopped at the
outer limits of the Court of Appeals' decision, but in some
important respects the proposed final judgment goes beyond the
issues affirmed by the Court of Appeals to deal with issues
important to the parties in this rapidly-changing
technology.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Transcript of Status Conference before the Honorable
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, November 2, 2001, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not intend today to provide a detailed description of each
provision of the PFJ; the provisions speak for themselves. It may
come as something of a surprise in light of some of the uninformed
criticism hurled at the decree, but one of Microsoft's principal
objectives during the negotiations was to develop proscriptions and
obligations that were sufficiently clear, precise and certain to
ensure that the company and its employees would be able to
understand and comply with the decree without constantly engendering
disputes with the Department. This is an area of complex technology
and the decree terms on which the Department insisted entailed a
degree of technical sophistication that is unprecedented in an
antitrust decree. Drafting to these specifications was not easy, but
the resulting PFJ is infinitely clearer and easier to administer
than the conduct provisions of the decree that Judge Jackson imposed
in June 2000.
If, as one might suspect would be the outcome in a case such as
this, the PFJ were written to proscribe only the twelve practices
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the decree would be much shorter
and simpler. The Department and settling states, however, insisted
that the decree go beyond just focused prohibitions to create much
more general protections for a potentially large category of
software, which the PFJ calls ``middleware.'' But even
these expansive provisions to foster middleware competition were not
sufficient to induce the Department and the states to settle;
rather, they insisted that Microsoft also agree to additional
obligations that bear virtually no relationship to any of the issues
addressed by the district court and the Court of Appeals. And lastly
they insisted on unprecedented enforcement provisions. I will
briefly describe each of these three sets of provisions.
1. Protections for ``Middleware''
The case that the plaintiffs tried and the narrowed liability
that survived appellate review all hinged on claims that Microsoft
took certain actions to exclude Netscape's Navigator browser and
Sun's Java technology from the market in order to protect the
Windows operating system monopoly. The plaintiffs successfully
argued that Microsoft feared that Navigator and Java, either alone
or together, might eventually include and expose a broad set of
general purpose APIs to which software developers could write as an
alternative to the Windows APIs. Since Navigator and Java can run on
multiple operating systems, if they developed into general purpose
platforms, Navigator and Java would provide a means of overcoming
the ``applications barrier'' to entry and threaten the
position of the Windows operating system as platform software.
A person might expect that a decree designed to address such a
monopoly maintenance claim would provide relief with respect to Web-
browsing software and Java or, at most, to other general purpose
platform software that exposes a broad set of APIs and is ported to
run on multiple operating systems. The PFJ goes much further. The
Department insisted that obligations imposed on Microsoft by the
decree extend to a range of software that has little in common with
Navigator and Java. The decree applies to ``middleware''
broadly defined to include, in addition to Web-browsing software and
Java, instant messaging software, media players, and even email
clients--software that, Microsoft believes, has virtually no
chance of developing into broad, general purpose platforms that
might threaten to displace the Windows platform. In addition, there
is a broad catch-all definition of middleware that in the future is
likely to sweep other similar software into the decree.
This sweeping definition of middleware is significant because of
the substantial obligations it imposes on Microsoft. Those
obligations--a number of which lack any correspondence to the
monopoly maintenance findings that survived appellate
review--are intended to create protections for all the vendors
of software that fits within the middleware definition. Taken
together, the decree provisions provide the following protections
and opportunities:
Relations with Computer Makers. Microsoft has agreed not to
retaliate against computer makers who ship soft-ware that competes
with anything in its Windows operating system.
Computer Maker Flexibility. Microsoft has agreed to grant
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with features
of Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by
which consumers access important features of Windows, such as
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger.
Notwithstanding the billions of dollars Microsoft invests developing
such cool new features, computer makers will now be able to replace
access to them in order to give prominence to non-Microsoft software
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks.
(Additionally, as is the case today, computer makers can provide
consumers with a choice--that is to say access to Windows
features as well as to non-Microsoft software programs.)
Windows Design Obligations. Microsoft has agreed to design
future versions of
[[Page 30216]]
Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows XP, to provide
a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within
Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to
features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers
will have the freedom to choose to change their configuration at any
time.
Internal Interface Disclosure. Even though there is no
suggestion in the Court of Appeals'' decision that Microsoft
fails to disclose APIs today and even though the Court of
Appeals'' holding on monopoly power is predicated on the idea
that there are tens of thousands of applications written to call
upon those APIs, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to
Windows operating system products.
Relations with Software Developers. Microsoft has agreed not to
retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software
that competes with Windows.
Contractual Restrictions. Microsoft has 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 that apply to agreements raising no
competitive concern. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into
agreements relating to Windows that obligate any software developer
to refrain from developing or promoting software that competes with
Windows.
These obligations go far beyond the twelve practices that the
Court of Appeals found to constitute monopoly maintenance. One of
the starkest examples of the extent to which these provisions go
beyond the Court of Appeals decision relates to Microsoft's
obligations to design Windows in such a way as to give third parties
the ability to designate non-Microsoft middleware as the
``default'' choice in certain circumstances in which
Windows might otherwise be designed to utilize functionality
integrated into Windows. As support for his monopoly maintenance
conclusion, Judge Jackson had relied on several circumstances in
which Windows was designed to override the end users'' choice
of Navigator as their default browser and instead to invoke IE. The
Court of Appeals, however, reviewed those circumstances and reversed
Judge Jackson's conclusion on the ground that Microsoft had
``valid technical reasons'' for designing Windows as it
did. Notwithstanding this clear victory, Microsoft acceded to the
Department's demands that it design future versions of Windows to
ensure certain default opportunities for non-Microsoft middleware.
2. Uniform Prices and Server Interoperability
Nevertheless, agreeing to this wide range of prohibitions and
obligations designed to encourage the development of middleware
broadly defined was not enough to get the plaintiffs to settle.
Instead, they insisted on two additional substantive provisions that
have absolutely no correspondence to the findings of monopoly
maintenance liability that survived appeal.
Uniform Price List. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers (who
collectively account for the great majority of PC sales) on
identical terms and conditions, including price (subject to
reasonable volume discounts for computer makers who ship large
volumes of Windows).
Client/Server Interoperability. Microsoft has agreed to make
available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-discriminatory
terms, any protocols implemented in Windows desktop operating
systems that are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft
server operating system.
In the case of the sweeping definition of middleware and the
range of prohibitions and obligations imposed on Microsoft, there is
at least a patina of credibility to the argument that the penumbra
of the twelve monopoly maintenance practices affirmed by the Court
of Appeals can be stretched to justify those provisions, at least as
``fencing in'' provisions. There is no sensible reading of
the Court of Appeals decision that would provide any basis for
requiring Microsoft to charge PC manufacturers uniform prices or to
make available the proprietary protocols used by Windows desktop
operating systems and Windows server operating systems to
communicate with each other. Nevertheless, because the plaintiffs
insisted that they would not settle without those two provisions,
Microsoft also agreed to them.
Before turning to the enforcement provisions of the PFJ, I want
to say a word about the few provisos included in the decree that
provide narrow exceptions to the various prohibitions and
obligations imposed on Microsoft. Those exceptions were critical to
Microsoft's willingness to agree to the sweeping provisions on which
the plaintiffs insisted. Without these narrowly tailored exceptions,
Microsoft could not innovate or engage in normal procompetitive
commercial activities. The public can rest assured that the settling
plaintiffs insisted on language to ensure that the exceptions only
apply when they promote consumer welfare. For example, some
companies that compete with Microsoft for the sale of server
operating systems apparently have complained about the so-called
``security carve-out'' to Microsoft's obligation to
disclose internal interfaces and protocols. That exception is very
narrow and only allows Microsoft to withhold encryption
``keys'' and the similar mechanisms that must be kept
secret if the security of computer networks and the privacy of user
information is to be ensured. In light of all the concern over
computer privacy and security these days, it is surprising that
there is any controversy over such a narrow exception.
3. Compliance and Enforcement
The broad substantive provisions of the PFJ are complemented by
an unusually strong set of compliance and enforcement provisions.
Those provisions are unprecedented in a civil antitrust decree. The
PFJ creates an independent three-person technical committee,
resident on the Microsoft campus, with extraordinary powers and full
access to Microsoft facilities, records, employees and proprietary
technical data, including Windows source code, which is the
equivalent of the ``secret formula'' for Coke. The
technical committee provides a level of technical oversight that is
far more substantial than any provision of any other antitrust
decree of which I am aware. At the insistence of the plaintiffs, the
technical committee does not have independent enforcement authority;
rather, reports to the plaintiffs and, through them, to the court.
The investigative and oversight authority of the technical committee
in no way limits or reduces the enforcement powers of the DOJ and
states; rather, the technical committee supplements and enhances
those powers. Each of the settling states and DOJ have the power to
enforce the decree and have the ability to monitor compliance and
seek a broad range of remedies in the event of a violation.
Microsoft also agreed to develop and implement an internal
antitrust compliance program, to distribute the decree and educate
its management and employees as to the various restrictions and
obligations. In recent years, Microsoft has assembled in-house one
of the largest, most talented groups of antitrust lawyers in
corporate America. They are already engaged in substantial antitrust
compliance counseling and monitoring. The decree formalizes those
efforts, and quite frankly adds very substantially to the in-house
lawyers'' work. As we speak, that group, together with key
officials from throughout the Microsoft organization, are working to
implement the decree and to ensure the company's compliance with it.
As with the substantive provisions, Microsoft agreed to these
unprecedented compliance and enforcement provisions because of the
adamance of the plaintiffs and because of the highly technical
nature of the decree. Microsoft, the Department, and the settling
states recognized that it was appropriate to include
mechanisms--principally, the technical committee--that
will facilitate the prompt and expert resolution of any technical
disputes that might be raised by third parties, without in any way
derogating from the government's full enforcement powers under the
decree. Although the enforcement provisions are unprecedented in
their stringency and scope, they are not necessitated or justified
by any valid claim that Microsoft has failed to comply with its
decree obligations in the past. In fact, Microsoft has an exemplary
record of complying with the consent decree to which the company and
the Department agreed in 1994. In 1997, the Department did question
whether Microsoft's integration of IE into Windows 95 violated a
``fencing in'' provision that prohibited contractual tie-
ins, but Microsoft was ultimately vindicated by the Court of
Appeals.\15\ Microsoft has committed itself to that same level of
dedication in ensuring the company's compliance with the PFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ United States v. Microsoft, 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir.
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
[[Page 30217]]
The PFJ strikes an appropriate balance in this complicated case,
providing opportunities and protections for firms seeking to compete
while allowing Microsoft to continue to innovate and bring new
technologies to market. The decree is faithful to the fact that the
antitrust laws are a ``consumer protection prescription,''
and it ensures an economic environment in which all parts of the PC-
ecosystem can thrive.
Make no mistake, however, the PFJ is tough. It will impose
substantial new obligations on the company, and it will require
significant changes in the way Microsoft does business. It imposes
heavy costs on the company and entails a degree of oversight that is
unprecedented in a civil antitrust case. For some competitors of
Microsoft, however, apparently nothing short of the destruction of
Microsoft--or at least the ongoing distraction of
litigation-- will be sufficient. But if the objective is to
protect the interests of consumers and the competitive process, then
this decree more than achieves that goal.
Finally, for all those who are worried about the future and what
unforeseen developments may not be covered by this case and the
decree, remember that the Court of Appeals decision now provides
guideposts, which previously did not exist, for judging Microsoft's
behavior, and that of other high technology companies, going
forward. Those guidelines, it is true, are not always easy to apply
ex ante to conduct; however, now that the Court of Appeals has
spoken, we all have a much better idea of the way in which section 2
of the Sherman Act applies to the software industry. In short, what
antitrust law requires of Microsoft is today much clearer than it
was when this case began. We have all learned a lot over the last
four years, and Microsoft has every incentive to ensure that history
does not repeat itself.
MTC-00033734
Testimony of Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School, before
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at its hearing: The Microsoft
Settlement: A Look to the Future
December 12, 2001
Four years after the United States government initiated legal
action against the Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft, the federal
government, and nine states have agreed upon a consent decree
(``the proposed decree'') to settle the finding of
antitrust liability that the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has
unanimously affirmed. In my view, that consent decree suffers from a
significant, if narrow, flaw. While it properly enlists the market
as the ultimate check on Microsoft's wrongful behavior, it fails to
provide an adequate mechanism of enforcement to implement its
requirements. If it is adopted without modification, it will fail to
achieve the objectives that the government had when it brought this
case.
Yet while it is important that an adequate and effective remedy
be imposed against Microsoft, in my view it equally important that
any remedy not be extreme. Microsoft is no longer the most
significant threat to innovation on the Internet. Indeed, as I
explain more fully below, under at least one understanding of its
current Internet strategy, Microsoft could well play a crucial role
in assuring a strong and neutral platform for innovation in the
future. Thus, rather than retribution, a remedy should aim to steer
the company toward this benign and beneficial strategy. Obviously,
this benign understanding of Microsoft's current strategy is not the
only understanding. Nor do I believe that anyone should simply trust
Microsoft to adopt it. But its possibility does suggest the
importance of balance in any remedy. The proposed decree does not
achieve that balance, but neither, in my view, does the alternative.
I am a law professor at Stanford Law School and have written
extensively about the interaction between law and technology. My
most recent book addresses directly the effect of law and technology
on innovation. I have also been involved in the proceedings of this
case. In 1997, I was appointed special master in the action to
enforce the 1995 consent decree. That appointment was vacated by the
Court of Appeals when it concluded that the powers granted me
exceeded the scope of the special master statute. United States v.
Microsoft Corporation, 147 F.3d 935, 953-56 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(``Microsoft II''). I was then invited by the District
Court to submit a brief on the question of using software code to
``tie'' two products together.\1\ I have subsequently
spent a great deal of time studying the case and its resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this testimony, I outline the background against which I draw
my conclusions. I then consider the proposed decree, and some of the
strengths and weaknesses of the alternative proposed to the District
Court by the nine remaining states (the ``alternative'').
Finally, I consider two particular areas in which this Committee may
usefully consider action in light of the experience in this case.
BACKGROUND
In June, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
unanimously affirmed Judge Jackson's conclusion that Microsoft used
its power over Windows to protect itself against innovation that
threatened its monopoly power. United States v. Microsoft
Corporation, 253 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Microsoft lID. That
behavior, the Court concluded, violated the nation's antitrust laws.
The Court therefore ordered the District Court to craft a remedy
that would ``''unfetter [the] 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.'' Microsoft III, 253 F.2d at 103 (citations omitted).
Integral to the Court's conclusion was its finding that
Microsoft had ``commingled code'' in such a way as to
interfere with the ability of competitors to offer equivalent
products on an even playing field. As the District Court found, and
the Court of Appeals affirmed, Microsoft had designed its products
in such a way as to inhibit the substitution of certain product
functionality. This design, the district court concluded, served no
legitimate business interest. The Court's conclusion was therefore
that Microsoft had acted strategically to protect its market power
against certain forms of competition.
In my view, this holding by the Court of Appeals is both correct
and important. It vindicates a crucial principle for the future of
innovation generally, and in particular, on the Internet. By
affirming the principle that no company with market power may use
its power over a platform to protect itself against competition, the
Court has assured competitors in this and other fields that the
ultimate test of success for their products is not the decision by a
platform owner, but the choice of consumers using the product. To
the extent that Microsoft's behavior violated this principle, and
continues to violate this principle, it is appropriate for the
District Court to craft a remedy that will stop that violation.
An appropriate remedy, however, must take into account the
competitive context at the time the remedy is imposed. And in my
view, it is crucially important to see that Microsoft does not
represent the only, or even the most significant, threat to
innovation on the Internet. If the exercise of power over a platform
to protect that platform owner from competition is a threat to
innovation (as I believe the Court of Appeals has found), then there
are other actors who also have significant power over aspects of the
Internet platform who could also pose a similarly dangerous threat
to the neutral platform for innovation that the Internet as has
been. For example, broadband cable could become a similar threat to
innovation, if access to the Internet through cable is architected
so as to give cable the power to discriminate among applications and
content. Similarly, as Chairman Michael Powell suggested in a recent
speech about broadband technology, overly protective intellectual
property laws could well present a threat to broadband
deployment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See (suggesting ``re-examining the copyright
laws'' and comparing freedom assured by decision permitting
VCRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft could play a significant role in resisting this kind
of corruption of the Internet's basic values, and could therefore
play an important role in preserving the environment for innovation
on the net. In particular, under one understanding of Microsoft's
current Internet strategy (which I will refer to generally as the
``.NET strategy''), Microsoft's architecture would push
computing power and network control to the ``edge'' or
``ends'' of the network, and away from the network's core.
This is consistent with a founding design principle of the early
network--what network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Clark,
and David Reed call ``the end-to-end argument.''\3\ .NET's
possible support of this principle would compete with pressures that
now encourage a compromise of the end-to-end design. To the extent
Microsoft's strategy resists that compromise,
[[Page 30218]]
it could become a crucial force in preserving the innovation of the
early network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ a See End to End Arguments in System .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that this benign, pro-competitive design is
the only way that Microsoft could implement its .NET strategy. There
are other implementations that could certainly continue Microsoft's
present threat to corn-Design, petition. And obviously, I am not
arguing that anyone should trust Microsoft's representation that it
intends one kind of implementation over another. Trust alone is not
an adequate remedy to the current antitrust trial.
My point instead is that there is little reason to vilify a
company with a strong and powerful interest in a strategy that might
well reinforce competition on the Internet-- especially when,
excepting the open source and free software companies presently
competing with Microsoft, few of the other major actors have
revealed a similarly pro-Internet strategy. Thus, rather than
adopting a remedy that is focused exclusively on the ``last
war,'' a proper remedy to the current antitrust case should be
sufficient to steer Microsoft towards its benign strategy, while
assuring an adequate response if it fails to follow this pro-
competitive lead.
Such a remedy must be strong but also effectively and
efficiently enforceable. The fatal weakness in the proposed decree
is not so much the extent of the restrictions on Microsoft's
behavior, as it is the weaknesses in the proposed mechanisms for
enforcement. Fixing that flaw is no doubt necessary to assure an
adequate decree. In my view, it may also be sufficient.
THE PROPOSED DECREE
While the proposed decree is not a model of clarity, the essence
of its strategy is simply stated: To use the market to police
Microsoft's monopoly. The decree does this by assuring that computer
manufacturers and software vendors remain free to bundle and support
non-Microsoft software without fear of punishment by Microsoft. Dell
or Compaq are thus guaranteed the right to bundle browsers from
Netscape or media players from Apple regardless of the mix that
Microsoft has built into Windows. Autonomy from Microsoft is thus
the essence of the plan--the freedom to include any
``middleware'' software with an operating system
regardless of whether or not it benefits Microsoft.
If this plan could be made to work, it would be the ideal remedy
to this four year struggle. Government regulators can't know what
should or should not be in an operating system. The market should
make that choice. And if competitors and computer manufacturers
could be assured that they can respond to the demands of the market
without fear of retaliation by Microsoft, then in my view they would
play a sufficient role in checking any misbehavior by Microsoft.
The weakness in the proposed decree, however, is its failure to
specify any effective mechanism for assuring that Microsoft
complies. The central lesson that regulators should have learned
from this case is the inability of the judicial system to respond
quickly enough to violations of the law.
Thus the first problem that any proposed decree should have
resolved is a more efficient way to assure that Microsoft complies
with the decree's requirements. Under the existing system for
enforcement, by the time a wrong is adjudicated, the harm of the
wrong is complete.
Yet the proposed decree does nothing to address this central
problem. The decree does not include provision for a special master,
or panel of masters, to assure that disagreements about application
could be quickly resolved. Nor does it provide an alternative fast-
track enforcement mechanism to guarantee compliance.
Instead the decree envisions the creation of a committee of
technical experts, trained in computer programming, who will oversee
Microsoft's compliance. But while such expertise is necessary in the
ongoing enforcement of the decree, equally important will be the
interpretation and application of the decree to facts as they arise.
This role cannot be played by technical experts, and yet in my view,
this is the most important role in the ongoing enforcement of the
decree.
For example, the decree requires that Microsoft not retaliate
against an independent software vendor because that vendor develops
or supports products that compete with Microsoft's. Proposed Decree,
III.B. By implication, this means Microsoft would be
free to retaliate for other reasons unrelated to the vendor's
competing software. Whether a particular act was
``retaliation'' for an improper purpose is not a technical
question. It is an interpretive question calling upon the skills of
a lawyer. To resolve that question would therefore require a
different set of skills from those held by members of the technical
committee.
The remedy for this weakness is a better enforcement mechanism.
As the nine remaining states have suggested, a special master with
the authority to interpret and apply the decree would assure a rapid
and effective check on Microsoft's improper behavior. While I
suggest some potential problems with the appointment of a special
master in the final section of this testimony, this arrangement
would assure effective monitoring of Microsoft, subject to appeal to
the District Court.
The failure to include an effective enforcement mechanism is, in
my view, the fatal weakness in the proposed decree. And while I
agree with the nine remaining states that there are other weaknesses
as well, in my view these other weaknesses are less important than
this single flaw. More specifically, in my view, were the decree
modified to assure an effective enforcement mechanism, then it may
well suffice to assure the decree's success. Without this
modification, there is little more than faith to assure that this
decree will work. With this modification, even an incompletely
specified decree may suffice.
The reason, in my view, is that even a partial, yet effectively
enforced decree, could be sufficient to steer Microsoft away from
strategic behavior harmful to competition. Even if every loophole is
not closed, if the decree can be effectively enforced, then it could
suffice to push Microsoft towards a benign, pro-competitive
strategy. The proposed decree has certainly targeted the most
important opportunity for strategic, or anti-competitive, behavior.
If the chance to act on these without consequence is removed, then
in my view, Microsoft has a strong incentive to focus its future
behavior towards an implementation of its .NET strategy that would
reinforce rather than weaken the competitive field. An effective, if
incomplete, decree could, in other words, suffice to drive Microsoft
away from the pattern of strategic behavior that has been proven
against it in the Court of Appeals.
There are those who believe Microsoft will adopt this benign
strategy whether or not there is a remedy imposed against them.
Indeed, some within Microsoft apparently believe that supporting a
neutral open platform is in the best interests of the company.\4\
Given the significant findings of liability affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, I do not believe it is appropriate to leave these matters
to faith. But I do believe that a remedy can tilt Microsoft towards
this better strategy, at least if the remedy can be efficiently
enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This is the argument of David Bank's Breaking Windows:
How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft (New York: Free
Press, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NINE STATES' ALTERNATIVE
On Friday, December 7, 2001, the nine states that have not
agreed to the proposed consent decree outlined an alternative remedy
to the one proposed by the Justice Department. In many ways, I
believe this alternative is superior to the Justice Department's
proposed decree. This alternative more effectively protects against
a core strategy attacked in the District Court--the commingling
of code designed to protect Microsoft's monopoly power. It has an
effective enforcement provision, envisioning the appointment of a
special master. The alternative has a much stronger mechanism for
adding competition to the market--by requiring that Microsoft
continue to market older versions of its operating system in
competition with new versions. And finally, the alternative requires
that Microsoft continue to distribute Java technologies as its has
in prior Windows versions.
The alternative, however, goes beyond what in my view is
necessary. And while in light of the past, erring on the side of
overly protective remedies might make sense, I will describe a few
areas where the alternative may have gone too far, after a brief
description of a few of the differences that I believe are genuine
improvements.
Areas of Common Strategy
Both the proposed decree and the alternative agree on a common
set of strategies for restoring competition in the market place.
Both seek to assure autonomy for computer manufacturers and software
vendors to bundle products on the Microsoft platform differently
according to consumer demand. Both decrees aim at that end by
guaranteeing nondiscriminatory licensing practices, and restrictions
on retaliation against providers who bundle or support non-Microsoft
products. The alternative specifies this strategy more cleanly than
the proposed decree. It is also more comprehensive. But both are
aiming rightly
[[Page 30219]]
at the same common end: to empower competitors to check Microsoft's
power.
Improvements of the Alternative
The alternative remedy adds features to the proposed decree that
are in my view beneficial. Central among these is the more effective
enforcement mechanism. The alternative proposes the establishment of
a special master, with sufficient authority to oversee compliance.
This, as I've indicated, is a necessary condition of any successful
decree, and may also be sufficient.
Beyond this significant change, however, there are a number of
valuable additions in the states'' alternative. By targeting
the ``binding'' of middleware to the operating system, the
alternative more effectively addresses a primary concern of the
Court of Appeals. This restriction assures that Microsoft does not
architect its software in a way that enables it strategically to
protect itself against competition. Such binding was found by the
courts to make it costly for users to select competing
functionality, without any compensating pro-competitive benefit.
The alternative also assures much greater competition with new
versions of the Windows operating system by requiring that prior
versions continue to be licensed by Microsoft. This competition
would make it harder for Microsoft to use its monopoly power to push
users to adopt new versions of the operating system that advance
Microsoft's strategic objectives, but not consumer preferences.
Finally, the alternative addresses a troubling decision by
Microsoft to refuse to distribute Java technologies with Windows XP.
This decision by Microsoft raises a significant concern that
Microsoft is determined to continue to play strategically to
strengthen the applications barrier to entry.
Concerns about the proposed alternative
While I believe the alternative represents a significant
improvement over the proposed consent decree, I am concerned that
the alternative may go beyond the proper scope of the remedy.
Open Sourcing Internet Explorer: While I am a strong supporter
of the free and open source software movements, and believe software
of both varieties is unlikely ever to pose any of the same strategic
threats that closed source software does, I am not convinced the
requirement of open sourcing Internet Explorer is yet required, or
even effective. Both proposed remedies have a strong requirement
that application interfaces be disclosed, and until that remedy
proves incomplete, I don't believe the much more extreme requirement
of full disclosure of source code is merited.
The definition of Middleware Products: The central target of the
litigation was Microsoft's behavior with respect to middleware
software. Understood in terms relevant to this case, middleware
software is software that lowers the applications barrier to entry
by reducing the cost of cross-platform compatibility. Java tied to
the Netscape browser is an example of middleware so understood; had
it been successfully and adequately deployed, it would have made it
easier for application program developers to develop applications
that were operating system agnostic, and therefore would have
increased the demand for other competing operating systems.
This definition is consistent with the alternative definition of
``middleware.'' But the specification of ``middleware
products'' reaches, in my view, beyond the target of
``middleware.'' Middleware is not properly understood as
software that increases the number of cross-platform applications;
middleware is software that increases the ease with which cross-
platform programs can be written. Thus, for example, Office is not
middleware simply because it is a cross-platform program. It would
only qualify as middleware if it made it easier for programmers to
write platform-agnostic code.
The requirement that Office be ported: For a similar reason, I
am not convinced of the propriety of requiring that Office be
ported. While Office for the Macintosh is certainly a crucial
application for the continued viability of the Macintosh OS, having
Office on many platforms does not significantly affect the
applications barrier to entry. No doubt if Microsoft strategically
pulled the development of Office in order to defeat another
operating system, or if it aggressively resisted applications that
were designed to be compatible with Office (such as Sun's Star
Office), that could raise antitrust concerns. But the failure simply
to develop office for another platform would not itself respond to
the concerns of the Court of Appeals.
No doubt, each of these additional remedies might be conceived
of as necessary prophylactics given a judgment that Microsoft is
resolved to continue its strategic anticompetitive behavior. And
after a fair and adequate hearing in the District Court, such a
prophylactic may well prove justified. At this stage, however, I am
not convinced these have been proven necessary.
APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
It is obviously inappropriate for Congress to intervene in an
ongoing legal dispute with the intent to alter the ultimate judgment
of the judicial process. Thus while I believe it is extremely
helpful and important that this Committee review the matters at
stake at this time, there is a limit to what this Committee can
properly do. In a system of separated powers, Congress does not sit
in judgment over decisions by Courts.
Yet there are two aspects to this case that do justify a greater
concern by Congress. Both aspects are intimately tied to earlier
decisions by the Court of Appeals. First, in light of the Court of
Appeals'' judgment in the 1995 Microsoft litigation, United
States v. Microsoft Corporation, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
(Microsoft I), it is clear that the Tunney Act proceedings before
the District Court are extraordinarily narrow. Second, in light of
the Court of Appeals'' judgment in 1998 Microsoft litigation,
Microsoft II, it is not clear that, absent consent of the parties,
the District Court has the power to appoint a special master with
the necessary authority to assure enforcement of any proposed
remedy. Both concerns may justify this Committee taking an
especially active role to assure a proper judgment can be
reached--in the first case through its consultation with the
executive, and the second, possibly with clearer legislative
authority.
The Tunney Act Proceedings
In Microsoft I, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held
that the District Court's authority under the Tunney Act to question
a consent decree proposed by the government was exceptionally
narrow. Though that statute requires that the District Court assure
that any consent decree is ``within the public interest,''
the Court read that standard to be extremely narrow. If the decree
can be said to be within ``the reaches of the public
interest,'' Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1461, then it is to be
upheld.
The consequence of this holding is that it will be especially
hard for the District Court to question the government's proposed
decree. Absent a showing of corruption, the decree must be affirmed.
It is hard for me to imagine that the proposed decree would fail
this extremely deferential standard. Thus any weaknesses in the
proposed decree would have to be resolved in the parallel
proceedings being pursued by the nine states.
This deference may be a reason for Congress in the future to
revisit the standard under the Tunney Act. Such a review could not
properly affect this case, but concerns about this case may well
suggest the value in future contexts.
But the concern about this decree may well be relevant to this
Committee's view about the appropriateness of the government's
cooperation with any ongoing prosecution by the nine states. The
federal government may well have decided its remedy is enough; it
wouldn't follow from that determination that the federal government
has a reason to oppose the stronger remedies sought by the states.
At a minimum, the government should free advisors or consultants it
has worked with to aid the continuing states as they may desire.
The power to appoint a ``special master''
In Microsoft II, the Court of Appeals interpreted a District
Court's power to appoint a special master quite narrowly. While the
Court acknowledged the strong tradition of using special masters to
enforce judgments, it raised doubt about the power of the special
master to act beyond essentially ministerial tasks. In particular,
the task of interpreting and applying a consent decree to contested
facts was held by the Court of Appeals to be beyond the statute's
power--at least where the District Court did not reserve to
itself de novo review of the special master's determination.
Microsoft II, 147 F.3d at 953-56.
This narrow view of a special master's power was a surprise to
many. It may well interfere with the ability of District Courts to
utilize masters in highly technical or complex cases. This Committee
may well need to consider whether more expansive authority should be
granted the District Courts. Especially in the context of highly
technical cases, a properly appointed master can provide invaluable
assistance to the District Court judge.
These limitations would not, of course, restrict the appointment
of a master in any case to which the parties agreed. And it may well
be that the simplest way for Microsoft to achieve credibility in the
context of this case would be for it to agree to the appointment of
a master with substantial
[[Page 30220]]
authority to interpret and apply the decree, subject to de novo
review by the District Court. Such a master should be well trained
in the law, but also possess a significant degree of technical
knowledge. But beyond the particulars of this case, it may well be
better if the District Court had greater power to call upon such
assistance if such the Court deemed such assistance necessary.
MTC-00033734
Consumer Federation of America
STATEMENT OF DR, MARK N. COOPER On THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK
TO THE FUTURE Before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES
SENATE, December 12, 2001
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research of the
Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation of America
is the nation's largest consumer advocacy group, composed of two
hundred and seventy state and local affiliates representing
consumer, senior citizen, low-income, labor, farm, public power, and
cooperative organizations, with more than fifty million individual
members.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
This hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To the
Future'' focuses public policy attention on exactly the right
questions. What should the software market look like? Does the Court
of Appeals'' ruling provide an adequate legal foundation for
creating that market? Is it worth the effort? What specific remedies
are necessary to get the job done?
Our analysis of the Microsoft case over four years leads us to
clear answers. We reject the claim that consumers must accept
monopoly in the software industry. Real competition can work in the
software market, but it wil1 never get a chance if Microsoft is not
forced to abandon the pervasive pattern of anticompetitive practices
it has used to dominate product line after product line.
The antitrust case has revealed a massive violation of the
antitrust laws. A unanimous decision of the Appeals Court points the
way to restoring competition.
The public interest demands that we try.
The proposed Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement is far
too weak to accomplish that goal. The litigating states''
remedial proposals are now the only chance that consumers have of
enjoying the benefits of competition in the industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Consumer Case Against Microsoft (October 1998);
The Consumer Cost of the Microsoft Monopoly.'' 510 Billion and
Counting (January 1999); Economic Evidence in the Antitrust Trial:
The Microsoft Defense Stumbles Over the Facts (March 18, 1999);
Facts Law and Antitrust Remedies.'' Time for Microsoft to be
Held Accountable for its Monopoly Abuses (May 2000) (Attachment A);
Mark Cooper, ``Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New
Economy: Lessons from the Microsoft Case,'' Hasting Law
Journal, 52 (April 2001) (see Attachment B); Windows XP/.NET:
Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, How it Can Harm Consumers and What
the Courts Must Do to Preserve Competition (September 26, 2001) (see
Attachment C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Competition In The Software Industry Is The Goal
The defenders of the Microsoft monopoly say that consumers
cannot hope for competition within software markets because this is
a winner-take-all, new economy industry. In this product space
companies always win the whole market or most of it, so anything
goes. In fact, Microsoft's expert witness has written in a scholarly
journal that: ``With ``winner take most'' markets...
[If] there can be only one healthy survivor, the incumbent market
leader must exclude its competition or die... There is no useful
non-exclusion baseline, which the traditional test for predation
requires... As to intent, in a struggle for survival that will have
only one winner, any firm must exclude rivals to survive .... In a
winner take most market, evidence that A intends to kill B merely
confirms A's desire to survive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Richard Schmalensee, ``Antitrust Issues in
Schumpeterian Industries,'' 90 American Economic Review,
192-194 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By that standard, if a monopolist burned down the facilities of
a potential competitor, it might be guilty of arson and other civil
crimes, but it would not be guilty of violating the antitrust laws.
Consumers should be thankful that both the trial court and the
Appeals Court flatly rejected this theory of the inevitability of
monopoly and upheld the century old standard of competition.
In fact, the products against which Microsoft has directed its
most violent anticompetitive attacks represent the best form of
traditional competition--compatible products that operate on
top of existing platforms seeking to gain market share by enhancing
functionality and expanding consumer choice.\3\ Microsoft fears
these products and seeks to destroy them, not compete against them,
precisely because they represent uncontrolled compatibility, rampant
interoperability and, over the long-term,, potential alternatives to
the Windows operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mark Cooper, Antitrust and Consumer Protection, pp.
863-880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTC-00033734
Consumer Federation of America
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK N. COOPER On THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK
TO THE FUTURE Before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES
SENATE, December 12, 2001
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research of the
Consumer Federation of *.america. The Consumer Federation of America
is the nation's largest consumer advocacy group, composed of two
hundred and seventy state and local affiliates representing
consumer, senior citizen, low-income, labor, farm, public power, and
cooperative organizations, with more than fifty million individual
members.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
This hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To the
Future'' focuses public policy attention on exactly the right
questions. What should the software market look like? Does the Court
of Appeals'' ruling provide an adequate legal foundation for
creating that market? Is it worth the effort? What specific remedies
are necessary to get the job done? Our analysis of the Microsoft
case over four years leads us to clear answers.
We reject the claim that consumers must accept monopoly in the
software industry. Real competition can work in the software market,
but it will never get a chance if Microsoft is not forced to abandon
the pervasive pattern of anticompetitive practices it has used to
dominate product line after product line.
The antitrust case has revealed a massive violation of the
antitrust laws. A unanimous decision of the Appeals Court points the
way to restoring competition.
The public interest demands that we try.
The proposed Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement is far
too weak to accomplish that goal. The litigating states''
remedial proposals are now the only chance that consumers have of
enjoying the benefits of competition in the industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Consumer Case Against Microsoft (October 1998);
The Consumer Cost of the Microsoft Monopoly.'' $10 Billion and
Counting (January. 1999); Economic Evidence in the Antitrust Trial:
The Microsoft Defense Stumbles Over the Facts (March 18, 1999);
Facts Law and Antitrust Remedies: Time for Microsoft to be Held
Accountable for its Monopoly Abuses (May 2000) (Attachment A); Mark
Cooper, ``Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New Economy:
Lessons from the Microsoft Case,'' Hasting Law Journal, 52
(April 2001) (see Attachment B); Windows XP/.NET: Microsoft's
Expanding Monopoly, How it Can Harm Consumers and What the Courts
Must Do to Preserve Competition (September 26, 2001) (see Attachment
C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Competition In The Software Industry. Is The Goal
The defenders of the Microsoft monopoly say that consumers
cannot hope for competition within software markets because this is
a winner-take-all, new economy industry. In this product space
companies always win the whole market or most of it, so anything
goes. In fact, Microsoft's expert witness has written in a scholarly
journal that: With ``winner take most'' markets... [If]
there can be only one healthy survivor, the incumbent market leader
must exclude its competition or die... There is no useful non-
exclusion baseline, which the traditional test for predation
requires... As to intent, in a struggle for survival that will have
only one ....inner, any firm must exclude rivals to survive .... In
a winner take most market, evidence that A intends to kill B merely
confirms A's desire to survive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Richard Schmalensee, ``Antitrust Issues in
Schumpeterian Industries,'' 90 American Economic Review
192-194 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By that standard, if a monopolist burned down the facilities of
a potential competitor, it might be guilty of arson and other civil
crimes, but it would not be guilty of violating the antitrust laws.
Consumers should be thankful that both the trial court and the
Appeals Court flatly rejected this theory of the inevitability of
monopoly and upheld the century old standard of competition.
In fact, the products against which Microsoft has directed its
most violent anticompetitive attacks represent the best form of
traditional competition--compatible products that operate on
top of existing
[[Page 30221]]
platforms seeking to gain market share by enhancing functionality
and expanding consumer choice.\3\ Microsoft fears these products and
seeks to destroy them, not compete against them, precisely because
they represent uncontrolled compatibility, rampant interoperability
and, over the long-term, potential alternatives to the Windows
operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mark Cooper, Antitrust and Consumer Protection, pp.
863-880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMBARGOED UNTIL 10:00 AM. WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 12. 2001
Association for Competitive Technology TESTIMONY OF MR. JONATHAN
ZUCK, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY (ACT) BEFORE
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES SENATE, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER
12, 2001, 160 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC 20510
ACT, 1413 K Street, NW, 12(th) Floor, Washington, DC 20005,
(202) 331 2130. www.ACTonline.org
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
Jonathan Zuck, President of the Association for Competitive
Technology, or ACT. On behalf of our member companies, it is my
sincere honor to testify before this committee today. As a
professional software developer and technology educator, I am
grateful for this opportunity and appreciate greatly your interest
in learning more about the effects of the proposed settlement
entered into by the United States Department of Justice (DO J), nine
state attorneys general and Microsoft on our industry. ACT is a
national, Information Technology (IT) industry group, founded by
entrepreneurs and representing the full spectrum of technology
firms. Our members include household names such as Microsoft, e-Bay
and Orbitz. However, the vast majority of our members are small and
midsize business, including software developers, IT trainers,
technology consultants, dot-corns, integrators and hardware
developers located in your states. The majority of ACT members
cannot hire lawyers and lobbyists or fly to Washington to have their
views heard. Therefore, they look to ACT to represent their
interests. To be sure, to meet the needs of our broad constituency,
we don't always agree with our members, even Microsoft, on some
policy issues.
I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the plight of
these small technology companies, because I spent over fifteen years
running similar companies. During this time, I've managed as many as
300 developers, taught over a hundred classes, and worked on some
interesting projects. I was responsible for a loan evaluation
application for Freddie Mac, an automated Fitness Report application
for the Navy and a Regional Check Authentication system for the
Department of Treasury. I have built software on multiple platforms
include DOS. DR-DOS, OS/2 and Windows using tools from many vendors
including Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase, Powersoft, IBM, Borland and
others. I remain active as a technologist and last year designed a
system to get to your corporate data wirelessly. I have also
delivered keynotes and other presentations at technical conferences
around the world.
While ACT members vary in their size and businesses, they share
a common desire to maintain the competitive character of today's
vibrant technology sector that has been responsible for America's
``new economy.'' Unfortunately, for the last three years,
the tens of thousands of small businesses in the IT industry, have
been virtually ignored during the government's investigation and
prosecution of Microsoft.
I believe the settlement, on balance, is good not only for the
bulk of the IT industry, but for consumers as well. Voters also see
the value in the settlement. Voter Consumer Research conducted polls
of 1,000 eligible voters last month in Utah and Kansas that are
quite telling. In Utah and Kansas, when asked if their state
attorney general should pursue the case after the DOJ settlement had
been reached, the respondents said, by a 6 to 1 margin, that they
should not.
As one of the ``techies'' on this panel, I look
forward to getting into more ``real life'' effects of the
proposed settlement to prove this point.
With that backdrop, my testimony today is focused on describing
how the settlement will foster competition for thousands of
America's small IT companies and how that, in turn, will benefit
consumers.
THE STATE OF OUR INDUSTRY
Before we discuss life in a post Microsoft settlement world, I
must speak to present-day competition and innovation. I want to
begin by stating unequivocally that, counter to the protestations of
some ``experts,'' competition in the IT industry is alive
and well. One demonstrable example is amount of capital investment
by Venture Capitalists (VCs) and where that money is headed. Despite
the recent downturn, VCs are still looking for the next
``billion dollar deal.'' I know because I have worked with
many of them. I won't get into the negative impact this
``homerun or nothing'' strategy has had on our industry
but suffice it to say, billion dollar deals do not come from
investing in mature markets with limited growth potential and large
existing players. Billion dollar deals only come from investing in
new markets with unlimited growth potential and those do not include
office productivity software market or even the general PC software
market. Indeed, a recent survey of VC's conducted by the DEMOletter,
showed that nearly a third of those surveyed will invest over $100
million in start-ups in 2002 and that nearly 20 per cent are
planning to invest up to $250 million)\1\ The sectors of the IT
industry receiving this money include software and digital media.\2\
These are precisely the sectors that would benefit from this
settlement, Suggestions that opposing the settlement would encourage
VC's to change their stripes are ridiculous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DEMOletter, December 200 I, at 5-6.
\2\ 2 Id., at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the information technology world is experiencing a
shift away from desktop computing and toward other devices such as
personal digital assistants (PDA's), cell phones, set top boxes/game
consoles, web terminals and powerful servers that connect them all.
In all these growth markets, competition is very strong even though
Microsoft is present. As of the third quarter of this year, more
than 52 percent of all PDA's were shipped with the Palm operating
system while only 18 percent carded a Microsoft operating system
according to Gartner. With cell phone manufacturers rushing to
integrate PDA functionality, there is are several large players
including Symbian (a joint venture between Nokia, Motorola,
Ericsson, Matsushita [Panasonic], and Psion), Palm, Linux and
Research in Motion's Blackberry operating system. In the game
console/set-top box arenas, Microsoft is just entering the picture
with established companies like Sony and Nintendo standing on large
installed user bases.
The server market is probably the best example of this growing
competition. According to IDC, Linux's worldwide market share of new
and upgraded operating systems for servers was 27 percent in 2000.
It was second only to Microsoft, which stood at 42 percent. IDC
predicts predicted Linux's market share will expand to 41 percent by
2005, while Microsoft's will only grow to 46 percent. Things should
only become more competitive with IBM putting a billion dollars into
its Linux push this year. The vigorous competition in this space in
proves in the absence of government intervention, companies like
Linux can thrive.
BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT
As the members of the Committee are doubtlessly aware, on
November 2, 2001 the DOJ and Microsoft tentatively agreed on a
settlement (or consent decree) designed to end the federal antitrust
suit. Soon thereafter, nine states attorneys general signed off on a
revised settlement. The proposed settlement succeeds in striking a
difficult compromise between the ``drastically altered''
finding of liability adopted by the Court of Appeals and the wishes
of Microsoft competitors and critics for crippling sanctions against
the company.\3\ Remarkably, the negotiators have worked out a
settlement proposal that, while entirely satisfying to none,
includes something for everyone. A number of Microsoft competitors
and their advocates have suggested that this agreement is flawed in
that it ``does not prevent Microsoft from leveraging its
monopoly into other markets.'' This argument is based on an
unfounded fear that Microsoft will attempt to monopolize other
markets such as instant messaging and digital media. Undermining
this argument is the fact that the Court of Appeals found
unanimously that Microsoft did not use its monopoly in the browser
(or middleware) market.\4\ The bottom line is that the settlement
was focused on addressing the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of
the past and preventing similar conduct in the future. It is
entirely consistent with the basic tenet
[[Page 30222]]
of antitrust law, which is to protect consumers and competition, not
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001)
at 102.
\4\ The Court of Appeals noted ``Because plaintiffs
have not carried their burden on either prong, [of an attempted
monopolization analysis] we reverse without remand.''/d., at
63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With that understanding, it is important to address the benefits
the industry and consumer will derive from implementation of the
proposed settlement. ACT believes that the benefits of the
settlement can be classified as follows:
1. Increased flexibility for Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs)
2. Increased flexibility for third party, IT companies
3. Greater consumer choice
4. Effective enforcement
I will discuss each benefit in turn, paying particular attention
to the positive effects on competition in our industry.
1. Increased flexibility for Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) OEMs play a pivotal role in ``supply chain'' of
delivering a rich computing experience for consumers. They provide
independent software vendors (ISVs), many of whom are small IT
companies, a valuable conduit by which to sell their wares directly
to consumers by vying for space on the computer desktop. Thus, it is
critical that OEMs have the flexibility to meet market demands by
negotiating with ISVs for this type of placement. This practice is
known as ``monetizing the desktop'' and is consistent with
market-based competition. Under the proposed settlement, OEMs will
have the flexibility to develop, distribute, use, sell, or license
any software that competes with Windows or Microsoft
``middleware\5\'' without restrictions or any kind of
retaliation from Microsoft.\6\6 Reinforcing this flexibility, the
settlement prohibits Microsoft from even entering into agreements
that obligate OEMs to any exclusive or fixed-percentage
arrangements.\7\ This allows OEMs to negotiate with an array of ISVs
through the use of any number of incentives. Moreover, OEMs obtain
some control over the desktop space for such things as icons and
shortcuts.\8\ Another critical element allowing the OEMs to create a
competitive playing field is that they have the ability to have non-
Microsoft operating systems (e.g., Linux) and other Internet Access
Providers (IAP) offerings (e.g., alternative Internet connections
such as AOL) launch at boot-up.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is a
defined term, while inconsistent with common industry usage, has the
meaning of ``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.'' Revised Proposed Final Judgment,
Section VI.K.
\6\ Id., Section III.A.
\7\ Id., Section III.G.
\8\ Id., Section III.C.
\9\ Id., Section III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Increased flexibility for third party IT companies Like OEMs,
ISVs and Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) gain the flexibility to
develop, distribute, use, sell, or license any software that
competes with Windows or Microsoft middleware without restrictions
or any kind of retaliation from Microsoft.\10\ The importance of
this fact cannot be overstated. ISVs and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id., Section III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTC-00033734--0146
IHVs, especially the thousands of small and mid-size companies
in these categories, make up a bulk of the IT industry and will be
able to utilize this flexibility to innovate and deliver
``consumer critical'' products such as instant messaging
and digital media to consumers.
The ISVs and IHVs will obtain advance disclosure of Windows
APIs, communications protocols, which ,,',,ill increase the
quantity, and quality, of competitive product offerings.\11\ As with
OEMs, Microsoft will be barred from thwarting competition by
entering into agreements that obligate ISVs, IHVs, LAPs, or ICPs to
any exclusive or fixed-percentage arrangements.\12\ It should be
noted that the settlement restricts some freedoms in crafting
contracts with Microsoft, and thus may discourage some companies
that might otherwise like to sign on to ``dance'' with
Microsoft. However, it also protects other companies from any
efforts by Microsoft to prevent them from teaming up with
Microsoft's competitors like Sun Microsystems or AOL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id., Sections III.D., III.E.
\12\ Id., Sections III.G., III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Greater consumer choice
Nothing is as important to our industry as giving consumers, or
end users, the freedom to choose what products and services they
want or need. To this end, the settlement ensures that consumers
will have the ability to enable or remove access to Microsoft or
non-Microsoft middleware, or substitute a non-Microsoft middleware
product for a Microsoft middleware product.\13\ Microsoft's
detractors have generated much commotion with the notion that
removal of icons or ``automatic invocations'' is not
enough, and that to give consumers ``real'' choice,
underlying code would have to be removed. This is nonsensical for
two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. III.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is a known fact that removal of visible access (e.g.,
an icon) to middleware or an application is a very effective means
of getting the end user to forget about it. Think about how many
icons reside on the average user's desktop that serve to
``remind'' him of what product to use for a certain task.
It is a simple case of ``out of sight, out of mind.''
Second, it is also a known fact that removal of the underlying does
nothing to enhance consumer choice, and actually could destabilize
the platform, increasing costs to consumer software developers who
could no longer count on programming interfaces within the Windows
operating system. The net result of these provisions is that
consumers will be in the position to pick the products the),
consider to best meet their needs--whether it be downloading
music, sharing pictures over the Web, or chatting with friends via
instant messaging applications.
Another myth propagated by Microsoft's competitors is that
Microsoft gets to reset the desktop to its preferred configuration
14 days after the consumer buys it no matter what steps the OEM or
the consumer have actually taken to try to exercise the choice to
use a non-Microsoft product. This is absolutely false. The desktop
would not be reset and consumers will always retain choice. For
example, consumers can choose among the OEM's configuration, their
own configuration and Microsoft's configuration.
4. Effective Enforcement
The final dement of the settlement that will ensure competition
is the enforcement provisions. Microsoft must license its
intellectual property to the extent necessary for OEMs and other IT
companies to exercise any of the flexibility provided in the
agreement.\14\ In an unprecedented move, the decree creates a
jointly appointed Technical Committee (TC) to monitor
compliance,\15\ The TC will have three members and unspecified
staff, and be granted unfettered access to Microsoft staff and
documents. While the TC is a better enforcement mechanism than
having to apply to a court for each software design element, it is
not without some flaws. For example, there are no restrictions on
how the TC can be utilized as a tool by Microsoft's competitors to
delay shipment of an operating system or middleware product. While
this may cause Microsoft some heartburn if it is used for such
delay, it will be a fatal malady to the thousands of small and mid-
size ISVs, IHVs, training firms and consultants that depend on a
timely product launch. I am not a lawyer, so I can only propose a
practical solution to this problem. Perhaps the competitors (or
anyone else with the view that Microsoft is not complying with the
consent decree) should be required to bring their problems to the TC
at specified times during the development life cycle. This would
prevent ``last minute'' delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id., Section III.I.
\15\ Id., Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Microsoft is required to implement an internal
Compliance Officer to be responsible for handling complaints and
compliance issues.\16\ This is yet another safeguard that aggrieved
parties can use to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the consent
decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id., Section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately these provisions are not enough to satiate some
bent on seeing that this settlement never gets approved. For
example, the)'' question why the settlement lasts for only 5
years rather than the customary 10. This inquiry fails to
acknowledge the realities of the IT industry and the speed at which
we innovate. One need only think about the number and types of
products that have emerged since 1998 to see why applying static
conduct restrictions are out of step with our industry and provide
no added value. Further, I believe seeking extended application of
the settlement only exposes a bias against Microsoft Because of the
significant impact on our industry, I must also address the
additional remedies proposed by the nine state attorneys general who
did not sign the consent decree. While their aim to ``restore
competition'' is a valid and important antitrust
principle--as long as it is limited to the elimination of
competitive barriers--their proposal ignores the Court of
Appeals ruling and runs counter to established antitrust
jurisprudence. The DOJ settlement agreement was wise to avoid the
dangerous temptation to redesign and regulate market outcomes. I'll
point out two
[[Page 30223]]
defects of the state's proposal. First, requiring that Windows
``must carry'' Java does nothing for consumers who can
download it with one click and only serves to thwart competition by
giving Sun Microsystems a special government-mandated monopoly with
which other middleware companies will have to compete. While I
believe ``must-carry'' provisions are inherently
anticompetitive, if the attorneys general were really trying to
stand on principle they would have to ask for the same provisions
for other middleware providers as well. Second, requiring Microsoft
to port its Office product to Linux is tantamount to making it a
``ward of the state.'' There are already several office
productivity suites available to users of Linux and some are even
free. It would stand to reason that if attorneys general are
actually interested in removing an{time} , ``applications
barrier to entry'' that may exist, they should force the
developers of ALL popular software products to port them to Linux.
It is clear that from the extreme nature of these proposals that the
settlement must encompass all reasonable mechanisms to restore
competition. The respondents to the Voter Consumer Research polls
mentioned above also question the need for the far-reaching remedies
that would hamper Microsoft's ability to innovate. In Utah for
example, nearly 70% of voters believe that Microsoft's products have
helped consumers and over 80% of these voters feel that that
Microsoft has benefited the computer industry. These numbers beg the
question: Where's the harm that would justify the nine state's harsh
remedies.
Conclusion
For ACT member companies, the IT industry and for me, it has
been a very long three and a half years. This settlement reflects a
balanced resolution to this litigation and a welcome end to the
uncertainty that has hung over our industry at a time when certainty
is what we need most. It addresses the anticompetitive actions
articulated by a unanimous Court of Appeals. I believe Assistant
Attorney Charles James when he said ``This settlement.., has
the advantages of immediacy and certainty.''\17\17 It my
sincere hope that the District Court will approve the settlement at
the conclusion of the public comment period. There is no doubt in my
mind that it is in the public interest to do so. Again, I thank the
Committee for the opportunity to include the views of ACT's member
companies at this important hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Remarks of Assistant Attorney Charles James,
Department of Justice press conference, November 2, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony of Matthew J. Szulik, President and CEO, Red Hat, Inc., to
the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, December 12,
2001
Good morning.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for allowing
me to contribute my views on a topic that I feel is of vital
importance to the future our nation. I stand before you today as
Winston Churchill said, ``only to fight while there is a
chance, so we don't have to fight when there is none.'' Through
your actions, members of the committee can affect a remedy that many
members of the growing, global technical community hope will restore
balance and inspire competitiveness in a networked society free of
monopolistic practices.
I stand before you today as a representative of the open source
community. And as the CEO of Red Hat, Inc., generally regarded as
the most successful company that sells and supports open source
software. The Red Hat Linux operating system software we sell is
created by a global community of volunteers. Volunteers who share
their creation of intellectual property. The basis for their work is
an open license that requires improvements to the technology be
shared with others. Programmers submit their software code, their
creations to the scrutiny of a very critical community of peers. The
best code wins and is included in the next version of the software.
This open communication strikes me as so perfectly American. I
envision the early leaders of this country drawing up the tenets of
our constitution in much the same way--in the open, in pursuit
of a solution that is fair and of benefit to all.
Some have called this the technology equivalent of a barn-
raising. Through this approach Linux software has grown, improved
and become one of the most stable, cost-effective operating systems
in the world. It continues to improve every day.
The values and practices of Red Hat are in most ways
antithetical to those of the monopolist I am here to reference.
Much testimony has been provided on the practices by the
monopolist, which in my view have placed a technical and financial
stranglehold on the technology industry. Mr. McNealy and Mr.
Barksdale and others that have come before me have done a good job
of presenting the issues to the committee. I support their
conclusions that the software industry needs government
intervention. I support their requests for strong enforcement of
antitrust laws.
I would like to reaffirm their case, that innovation will occur
when there is a competitive environment free of monopolistic
practices.
Open source software arose because of a lack of alternatives
that allowed the individual to choose the best tool for the job.
Over the past 5 years, projects created by Red Hat and the open
source community have become solutions of choice in areas of
standards-based Internet software development, areas that the
monopolist does not yet control.
The growth of the Linux operating system is an example of this
acceptance. The Apache web server is another, it now holds a market-
leading position. However, the Internet browser, desktop operating
system and office productivity software are areas that have
continued to be influenced by one vendor alone.
One of the reasons I am. so deeply troubled by the consent
decree in this case is that it seems to run counter to things that
are fundamental to our identity as Americans. We value fair play,
ethical competition, abiding by the rules and fostering innovation.
The consent decree throws all of this away. It acknowledges that my
competitor has broken the law; that through these violations it has
built one of the most formidable businesses in the world. Yet the
consent decree does little to prevent future misconduct. I feel if
the antitrust laws are not enforced, the will and spirit of the true
innovators will suffer.
Lengthy legal critiques of the consent decree are already on
record. In the interest of time I will not subject you to more this
morning. I am sure you've heard enough legal arguments in
considering this topic. Rather, I want to make a few key points:
First, their growing monopoly power has seriously warped the
technology market. Now that my competitor is a convicted monopolist,
the world can see in the public record what those in technology
companies have known for years: they don't compete fairly, they use
their dominance in one market to dominate others, and they stifle
innovation in the name of competition. The only way to stop
this--to restore fairness to the market--is a settlement
of this case that denies the monopolist the fruits of its past
actions and provides remedial measures on the monopolist for its
violations of the law.
Second, the consent decree as it stands today, falls far short
of this requirement. Given the monopolist's history of skating up to
the edge, or over the edge, in not fully complying with prior
settlements, it will take very strong measures to change their
behavior. In the words of Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F.
Reilly, commenting on the consent decree: ``Five minutes after
any agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how
to violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their
competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's
what they do.''
Microsoft is deeply concerned about open source software and has
already making overtures on how it will use dominance rather than
technical expertise to crush it.
The CEO of the monopolist said, quote, ``Linux is a cancer
that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything
it touches.''
The head of the monopolist's Windows Platform Group has similar
beliefs: He said publicly, quote, ``Open source is an
intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that
could be worse than this for the software business.'' He goes
on further to say, ``I'm an American, I believe in the American
way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't
think we've done enough education of policy-makers to understand the
threat.''
In my view, the consent decree should create a level playing
field between Windows and Linux. Because of their comments, and
their past actions, I believe the current consent decree is not
strong enough. They will circumvent it.
Third, we have all heard of the Digital Divide. It's the gap in
information and computing access between the haves and have nots in
our society. As many states struggle with declining revenues, I
believe these shortfalls will have a material impact on the public
funding of K-12 and higher education. The path to the development of
an
[[Page 30224]]
information economy can not be limited to a sole supplier, who in my
view has seen education up to this point, relative to its financial
position as a market--not as a responsibility. I believe the
lack of choices and high recurring costs is in part responsible for
this growing chasm between the two Americas.
I'm involved with North Carolina Central University--an
historically black university that cannot afford the monopolist's
restrictive licenses and forced upgrades. I see this sad experience
in schools throughout our country. Walk the halls of schools in East
Roxbury, MA or Snow Hill, NC and question how we can expect, as a
nation, to improve the future for our youth when schools must
allocate 30-40% of their IT budget for software and hardware
upgrades. Provided choice, these same dollars could be put into
teacher training and acquiring more technology. The Chinese
government understands this. The French and German governments as
well. They have stated that proprietary software will not be used to
develop government and educational infrastructure.
But the monopolist has more than 90% of the desktop operating
system market and more than 70% of the Internet browser market. What
choices do our schools have? What choices do our citizens have? As
the monopolist extends its monopoly into additional markets, largely
unfettered by the legal system and apparently immune to the
consequences of their actions-- the Digital Divide widens.
Biologists know that an unbalanced ecosystem, one dominated by a
single species, is more vulnerable to collapse. I think we're seeing
this today. Under the consent decree, it will continue and probably
get worse.
In America, history has taught us that there is no mechanism
more logical and efficient and than a free and open market. Our
competitor's illegal monopolistic actions have significantly reduced
the open market in information technology. I believe that in extreme
cases like this, it is the role of the government to step in and
restore balance.
Thank you.
Testimony of Mitchell E. Kertzman, Chief Executive Officer, Liberate
Technologies before the United States Senate, Committee on the
Judiciary, Wednesday, December 12, 2001
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, and other members of the Committee,
thank you for the chance to speak on this critical topic. The
Proposed Final Judgment is woefully inadequate. It is a backward-
looking document that fails to prevent Microsoft from abusing its
monopoly position to increase costs and stifle new
technologies--not just for personal computers, but also for new
technologies like digital televisions, cellular phones, game
consoles, and personal digital assistants. Microsoft has already
announced its intent to expand its dominance beyond PC operating
systems, servers, and applications to new devices and even personal
information via its ``eHome'' and ``Passport''
initiatives. According to comments made by Microsoft President Steve
Ballmer just last week, Microsoft is pursuing a ``broader
concept'' for its client devices like the xBox and set-top box
software. In his words, ``[T]here's a bigger play we hope to
get over time'' by annexing all of these devices into the
Microsoft empire. Microsoft's own demos and white papers show that
it plans to establish its operating system as the software that
would collect information streaming into the home and distribute it
to each new device. Microsoft has used and will continue to use its
monopoly over desktop operating systems to deny competition in each
new computing market as it evolves: first desktop applications, then
internet browsers and servers, and now alternative devices ranging
from smart phones to television set-top boxes. By dealing only with
a narrow category of Windows products, and failing even there to
impose any significant restrictions, the Proposed Final Judgment
fails to check Microsoft's demonstrated willingness to exploit its
power over the operating system in order to dominate other market
segments.
Background
By way of personal background, I am the CEO of Liberate
Technologies, a company making middleware software that enables
interactive and enhanced television. Before joining Liberate, I was
chairman and CEO of Sybase, then one of the world's ten largest
independent software companies, founder and CEO of Powersoft, an
enterprise software company, and chairman of both the American
Electronics Association and the Massachusetts Software Council. I am
also currently a director of CNET, Handspring, and TechNet.
Throughout my career, I have both partnered with and competed
against Microsoft. I have been impressed by the power of its
dominant platforms, but also concerned about the abuses that
resulted from that dominance. I have seen Microsoft consistently use
its power to block competition in new markets through at least three
types of misconduct that the PFJ does nothing to deter: (1)
Preventing original equipment manufacturers from supporting new
technologies; (2) Tying commercial restrictions to investments; and
(3) Blocking non-Windows-based industry standards.
(1) Preventing Original Equipment Manufacturers from Supporting New
Technologies
My current company, Liberate, was originally Network Computer
Incorporated, promoting computers and software that would operate
via a network to significantly reduce the cost of computing. This
model, like the Netscape browser, threatened the dominance of the
Windows platform. But because the manufacturers of many new devices
also manufacture desktop PCs, Microsoft was able to exploit its
desktop OEM relationships to discourage competition. For example,
Network Computer had an active relationship with Digital Equipment
Corporation to develop a device running our software. Microsoft and
Mr. Gates simply threatened the CEO of DEC that they would port
Microsoft's NT operating system to DEC hardware only if DEC stopped
development of a network computer, an offer DEC couldn't refuse.
It's clear, and the courts have reaffirmed, that a monopoly simply
cannot engage in this kind of conduct.
Such tactics forced us to exit this business, and the price of
PC operating systems and applications remains as high as ever when
all other computing costs have plummeted.
The Proposed Final Judgment focuses only on Windows products for
desktop PCs and includes broad and ambiguous exceptions to its
limits on retaliation. These loopholes would apparently let
Microsoft get away with the kind of misconduct it perpetrated
against Network Computer. The result would be to block or delay the
development of new competitive devices and technologies. The remedy
proposed by the non-settling states would, on the other hand,
prevent Microsoft from engaging in this type of retaliation and
unfairly extending its desktop monopoly to a wider array of software
and devices.
(2) Tying Commercial Restrictions to Investments
Second, in investing the considerable proceeds of its desktop
monopoly in new markets, Microsoft has extracted, or attempted to
extract, exclusive or near-exclusive commercial distribution
arrangements to block out competitors. In the interactive television
industry alone, Microsoft has invested billions of dollars with
leading cable and satellite networks. As recently as this week,
Microsoft has again aggressively pursued this strategy with leading
operators both here and in Europe. The strings attached to these
investments often require networks to buy Microsoft's middleware,
making it difficult or impossible for them to buy competitive
products.
Microsoft's money is a heavy thumb on the scale, biasing choices
of future technologies in its favor. As new-generation computers and
small consumer devices often rely on networks for their
interconnections, these investments in network companies set the
stage for continued dominance of these new platforms as they evolve.
Again, the PFJ fails to even address the issue of such
restrictive dealings outside the scope of desktop products. In
contrast, the remedies filed last week by the non-settling states,
while not barring new investments, would at least require that
Microsoft give 60 days notice to permit a review of anti-competitive
effects.
(3) Refusing to Support Non-Windows-Based Industry, Standards
Microsoft has also abused its monopoly position by blocking
industry-wide standards essential to the evolution of a new
generation of network-based devices. In our industry, Microsoft has
undermined Java as a standard for digital television, lobbying
heavily to prevent U.S. and European standards bodies from
standardizing on Java. As you know, Java lets developers
``write once, run anywhere'', permitting content to run
across a wide variety of platforms rather than just on Microsoft's
proprietary code.
As a second prong of this strategy to block, co-opt, or
``embrace and extend'' standards, Microsoft has refused to
join with other
[[Page 30225]]
technology companies in pooling its intellectual property, instead
indicating that it will sue to block the implementation of standards
wherever it can find a violation of one of its patents. Microsoft
certainly has the right not to support a standard. However, they are
exploiting their dominance in the PC market to distort standards
elsewhere.
Third, by removing the Java Virtual Machine from its PC
operating systems while the JVM is common elsewhere, Microsoft
discourages developers from creating new ``write-once, run-
anywhere'' content, undermines support for uniform standards,
and drives developers to write to proprietary Microsoft platforms.
It is clear that Microsoft's foot-dragging and affirmative
interference has slowed the deployment of digital television in the
United States. Cable companies and television manufacturers both say
that a gating issue has been the lack of a definitive standard for
digital television, a standard that Microsoft's tactics have delayed
and undermined. Microsoft's approach stands in direct opposition to
the clearly expressed will of Congress and the interests of all
Americans interested in richer and more varied television
programming.
Yet again, the PFJ would do nothing to prevent these abuses. The
remedies recently filed by the non-settling states--by making
available Microsoft APIs and certain types of code, opening access
to the personal identification data captured by Microsoft Passport,
and requiring the distribution of the Java Virtual
Machine--would promote technology interoperability and the
development of universally beneficial standards while maintaining
relatively open alternatives to Microsoft software and services.
Conclusion
The PFJ is a disappointment. Disappointing because it is weaker
than the facts and the law of the case support, and disappointing
because it will not limit Microsoft's plans to dominate new markets
in the same way it has dominated operating systems, applications,
and servers in the past.
I welcome this hearing, and hope that this Committee will
continue to exercise vigorous oversight of this case to assure that
the final outcome is in the best interests of American consumers.
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
December 11, 200!
Senator Patrick Leahy
Judiciary Committee
US Senate
Washington, DC
Via fax: 1.202,224.9516
Dear Senator Leahy: This is a quick note to express my
disappointment that I will not be among the panel members for the
December 12, 2001 hearing on Microsoft. 3ames Love on our staff made
a number of telephone calls to your Judiciary Committee staff asking
that he or [be permitted to testify, beginning as soon as the
hearings were first announced. As you may know, we played an
instrumental role in 1997 in pushing the Department of Justice to
bring this antitrust case, and hosted two key conferences that
helped flame the discussions over the case and the proposed remedies
(http://www.appraislng-microsoft.org). I am attaching also two
letters .lames Love and I have recently sent regarding the
government and private antitrust cases. Would you please include
these letters in the printed hearing record. Thank you.
NO. 574 002
Ralph .Nader
P.O. Box 193 1 2
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
November 5, 2001
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
Introduction
Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage,
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to
Microsoft.
We are disappointed of course that the court has moved :/way
from a structural remedy, which we believe would require less
dependence upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by
Microsoft, and which would jump start a more competitive market for
applications. Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make
the following observations.
On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power,
particularly in terms of its OF. OEM licensing practices and on the
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where
the interoperability remedies should lie stronger. For example,
there is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for
popular office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover,
where Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy
intellectual property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly
operating system where it will be needed the most, in terms of new
interfaces and technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give
Microsoft too many opportunities to Undermine the free software
movement. We also find the agreement wanting in several other
areas.. It is astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any
penalty for Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense that
Microsoft is escaping punishment because of its extraordinary
political and economic power, and undermining the value of antitrust
penalties as a deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately
address the concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the
spirit or the letter of previous agreements, offering a weak
oversight regime that suffers in several specific, areas. Indeed,
the proposed alternative dispute resolution far compliance with the
agreement embraces many of the worst features of such systems,
operating ``in secrecy, lacking independence, and open to undue
influence from Microsoft.
OEM Licensing Remedies
We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory, licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these
remedies include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft
middleware, changes in the management of visible icons and other
issues. These remedies would have been more effective if they would
have been extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of
Microsoft's monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if
they permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless,
they are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to
consumers.
Interoperability Remedies
Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of
Microsoft: products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for
example the disclosures of APIs for Windows and Microsoft middleware
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used
for services, and non-discriminatory licensing of certain
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products.
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited
by Micro. soft, and as is indicated by the record in this c .use,
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts
to cream barriers to competition and enhance and extend its monopoly
power.
Special Concerns for Free Software Movement
The provisions in J.l and 1.2..appear to give Microsoft too much
flexibility in withholding information on ``security grounds,
and to .provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens
on a rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the
importance of new software development models, including those
``open source'' or ``free'' software development
models which are now widely recognized as providing an important
safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the
Interact depends.
The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of
technical information to the broader public is an important and in
our view core flaw in the proposed
[[Page 30226]]
agreement. The agreement should require that this information be as
freely available as possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to
justify .secrecy. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Microsoft is
focused on strategies to cripple the free software movement, which
it publicly considers an important competitive threat. This is
particularly true for software developed under the GNU Public
License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival
to Microsoft in the server market. Consider. for example, comments
earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin:
http://news.cnet.com/news/O- 1003-200-4833927.html
``Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to
innovation,'' Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT
One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely
distributed software Code such as Linux could stifle innovation and
that legislators need to understand the threat.
The result will be the demise of both intellectual property
rights and the incentive to spend on research and development,
Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week.
Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing
protection of intellectual progeny rights ... ``Open source is
an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ``I
can't imagine something that could be worse than this for. the
software business and the intellectual-property business.''....
In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago Sun Times,
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/Linux
business model, saying ``Linux is a cancer that attaches itself
in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's
the way that the license works,'' leading to a round of new
stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com: http://
www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01 .html ``Microsoft
CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times,'' Chicago Sun Times,
June I, 2001.
http://news.cnet.co m/news/O- 1 003-200-6291224.
html
``Why Microsoft is wary of Open source: Joe Wilcox and
Stephen Shankland in CNET.com. June 18, 2001.
There's more to. Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source
movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the
software giant in its quest to gain control of'' a server
market that's crucial to its long-term goals Recent public
statements by Microsoft executives have east Linux and the open-
source philosophy that underlies it as. at the minimum, bad for
competition, and, at worst, a ``cancer'' to everything it
touches. Behind the war of words, analysts say, is evidence that
Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing
popularity. The Unix- like operating system ``has clearly
emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a
dominant position'' in the worldwide server operating-system
market, IDC analyst Al Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.
.. While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious
inroads... ].. In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds
itself competing ``not against another company, but against a
grassroots movement,'' said Paul Dain, director of application
development at Emeryville, Calif.-based Wirestone, a technology
services company.
,.. Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License
(GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes
to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The
license means that ifs company changes the kernel, it must publish
the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to
distribute the code externally...
Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company
has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May,
Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33
percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of
Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade
to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on.
The action ``will encourage--'force'' may be a more
accurate term-- customers-to upgrade much sooner than they had
otherwise planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report..
``Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only
way to ``upgrade'' from a pr0duet that is not considered
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full license.''
This could make open-source Linux's GPL, more attractive to some
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said.
``Offering this form of ``upgrade protection'' may
motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft
technology.'' ...
What is surprising is that the US .Department of Justice allowed
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for. example that
under J. l and ].2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and
viability of its business,'' while at the same time it is
describing the licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer''
that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights
system and the future of research and development.
The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon
the free sharing of technical information with the general public,
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft
can tightly control access to technical information under a court
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its
prices for its monopoly products.
Problems with the term and the enforcement mechanism Another
core concern with the proposed final order concerns the term of the
agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a five-to-seven
year term is artificially brief, considering that this case has
already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, and the
fact that Microsoft's dominance in. the client OS market is stronger
today than it has ever been, and. it has yet to face a significant
competitive threat in the client OS market. An artificial end will
give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, meeting each new
problem with an endless round of evasions and creative methods of
circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the agreement. Only if
Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms with its
obligations will it modify its strategy of Even within the brief
period of the term of the agreement, Microsoft has too much room to
co-opt the enforcement effort:
Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the
courts, is given the right to select ``one member of the three
members of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in
selecting the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to
secrecy, denying the public any information on Microsoft's
compliance with the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft,
working inside Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if
this committee spends its time playing golf with Microsoft
executives, or investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities.
Its ability to interview Microsoft employees will be extremely
limited by the provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to
insist on'' having its lawyers present.
One would be hard pressed to imagine an enforcement mechanism
that would do less to make Microsoft accountable, which is probably
why Microsoft has accepted its terms of reference.
In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, IBM was
required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues raised by its
competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with IBM to review
its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the right to
revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not satisfied with
IBM's conduct.
The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example
an annual report that could include information on past complaints,
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft.
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich
Microsoft would be difficult to. fathom, but one might make these
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own
monopoly. This would, give Microsoft a much greater incentive to
abide by the agreement.
[[Page 30227]]
Failure to address II1 Gotten Gains
Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers
of the government and members of the judiciary.
Microsoft has profited richly from the maintenance of its
monopoly. On September 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-
term investments of $36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the
previous quarter--an accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per
month. ``
It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history
of evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of
anticompetitive practices--practices recognized as illegal by
all members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only.
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other
large corporate law breakers7 That economic crimes pay! Please
consider these and other criticisms of the settlement proposal, and
avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a Microsoft antitrust
case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner
message.
`James Love'
Cc: Stanley Sporkin, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Anne K.
Bingaman. Joel I. Klein
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
``Washington, DC 20036
December 10, 2001
Judge Honorable .1. Frederick Motz
United States District Court
District of Maryland
101 West Lombard Street
Room 510
Baltimore, MD 21201
Fax: + 1.410.962.2698
RE: Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1332
Dear Judge Motz:
We are writing to ask that you reject the proposed settlement to
the private antitrust actions against Microsoft, on the grounds that
the settlement is inadequate in terms of the relief, anticompetitive
In terms of its structure, and is among the least effective
mechanisms for expanding access to educational services.
Microsoft has extraordinary global monopoly power. In several
essential software markets, ``including most notably its more
than 90 percent market share for the operating systems (Windows),
word processing (Word), spreadsheets (Excel) and presentation
graphics (Powerpoint), and it has engaged in the equivalent of an
antitrust crime spree, using an astonishing array of anticompetitive
practices to consolidate and expand its monopoly power. As a
consequence, consumers are denied the benefits of competition, and
suffer from sluggish innovation, poor quality products, fewer
choices, .and high prices. The Microsoft monopoly is highly
profitable, and allowed Microsoft to accumulate an astonishing $1.5
billion per month, in cash last quarter. The proposed settlement of
the private antitrust claim is not only a tiny sum In comparison to
MTC-00033734--0169
Comments o1
Ralph Nader and James Love
Microsoft's sales ($1 billion every 13 days currently), but It
will not even be paid in cash.]:t isn't as if Microsoft can't afford
to pay.. ]:t has cash reserves more than $36 billion right now.
Microsoft simply sees the resolution of this antitrust case as a
great opportunity to engage in more anticompetitive conduct--in
this case converting its liabilities for antitrust damages into a
slush fund to undermine its competitors in the educational market.
The court should not allow the lawyers who have proposed this
settlement to bury this important antitrust case with yet another
disappointment in the long history of weak efforts to reign in
Microsoft's assaults on consumers. The settlement should not be yet
another marketing effort by Microsoft aimed at the strategically
important education market. It should provide a measure of justice
that has yet eluded a long list of law enforcement officials. We
object to many aspects of the settlement.
* The size of the damages is small by any reasonable
interpretation of the harm to consumers.
* Microsoft is demonstrating zero remorse for its price
gouging, and indeed has engaged in its most aggressive price hikes
to date, as it continues to narrow consumer rights in license
agreements, raises standard and negotiated license fees (including
those for the educational market), and steps up its coercive
strategies to force upgrades, such as its ``abandonment of
support for older licenses, and the introduction of new non-
Interoperable technologies that will not work without, increasingly
frequent upgrades.
The proposal will make it even less attractive for schools to
purchase products from Microsoft competitors, because Microsoft will
subsidize its sates from the antitrust settlement costs, having the
Intended and entirely predictable effect of strengthening
Microsoft's marketshare and weakening further its few remaining
rivals. Moreover, to the degree that the funds from the settlement
are small relative to the number of schools that will seek grants or
donations, and if Microsoft is perceived to play any role in
determining who obtains grants, schools may be reluctant to purchase
products from Microsoft rivals, thinking this will undermine their
chances or receiving benefits from the settlement fund, allowing
Microsoft to leverage the anticompetitive effect of the settlement
fund. (One need only look at the comments filed in this proceeding
to appreciate how eager various non-profit Institutions are to curry
favor with Microsoft:. Many groups that have received Microsoft
grants are now on record opposing .efforts to reject this settlement
as inadequate and anticompetitive.) For schools, the more
``important issue is dealing with skyrocketing license fees,
which this settlement will only address in a minor way, for a small
number of users, and for only a short time.
MTC-00033734--0170
Ralph Nader and James Love
If the court wishes to direct the settlement resources for the
educational market, it should do so in such a way as to promote
competition, rather than to reduce competition. One solution would
be to place the money into a trust fund to be used only for
purchases of non-Microsoft products, creating a needed boost to the
market for alternatives. Another would be to require the funds be
donated to groups who develop free software alternatives--these
very alternatives that Microsoft executives have claimed were their
main competitive threat during the USDOJ/State AG antitrust
litigation. Either of these approaches will directly address the
longer term concern over software pricing, the problem this case
seeks to remedy.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
Consumer Project on Technology
MTC-00033734--0171
Written Statement of Mark Havlicek Digital Data Resources, Inc.
Provided to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
December 12, 2001
Thank you, Chairman Leahy and distinguished Members of the
Committee including my own Senator Grassley. I am pleased to
contribute my comments to your hearing on he Microsoft Settlement: A
Look to the Future.'' My name is Mark Havlicek and I am the
President of Digital Data Resources, Inc. in Des Moines, Iowa. I
have been actively involved in the technology industry for several
years, and it is my hope that the Microsot5 case wi11 be settled.
The economic outlook for 2002 is very concerning. From coast to
coast, revenue growth has slowed, spending is exceeding budgeted
levels, and many states are looking at large budget cuts. My own
state of Iowa is in the middle of a terrible budget crisis.
After the events of September I 1, we saw a dramatic plunge in
the technology sector. Instead of bring tied up in court, technology
entrepreneurs should at work developing products and charting new
territory with never before imagined products and services. Given
the opportunity and free of
[[Page 30228]]
unnecessary hurdles to progress, technology companies can build our
economy back up to record levels. Giants like Apple, IBM, and
Microsoft provide a stable environment for the myriad small firms,
like mine, to create, develop, and release new cutting-edge
technologies and employ additional people in good paying careers.
Small companies like my own, work in concert, and competition at
times, with these giants. This mutually dependent relationship is
the lifeblood of our industry and a driving force behind our growth.
Over the past 20 years, we have seen computers go from the size
of a refrigerator to the size of a deck of cards. And in tandem with
those leaps forward, We have seen declining prices, better and
faster technology, and increasingly more efficient methods of
delivery to consumers.
It takes a competitive, entrepreneurial spirit to survive in
this exceptionally aggressive industry of ours, especially in the
case of small or emerging businesses. We spend our days watching
competitors, finding markets, and keeping a watchful eye on the
economy. .And it seemed the storm has passed, both figuratively and
in the eyes of the stock market, when a settlement was announced
last month.
But the states, including my own state of Iowa, which remain
involved have argued for tougher enforcement provisions, including a
court-appointed ``special master'' to oversee Microsoft's
compliance. And we have found through experience that there is no
remedy discrete to Microsoft when it's the nucleus of a tech sector
that operates as its own economy.
These states arc not right to push ahead for further prosecution
of Microsoft The proposed settlement is sufficient to address the
concerns of business people like me who are in the technology
industry and are most affected. Companies like mine strive to be
similar to Microsoft and we are discouraged by the hold-out states
position on further action. It seems to me to be a strong
disincentive to progress and entrepreneurial --achievement.
The time to take a hard line on successful companies like
Microsoft is over. The hold-out states are holding out to the
detriment of their state economies and our national economy at a
time when actions like this are not at all useful.It is a
frightening prospect to see another dollar of precious development
resources diverted to paying attorneys' fees instead of rippling
through our industry. Money that could have launched a new product
or created new opportunities for a small business on the brink
instead has disappeared into the abyss of this lawsuit. The
settlement is a positive step in putting it all behind us and
opening a new chapter in the life of the technology industry.
I applaud Assistant Attorney General Charles lames for his role
in bringing the case this far. The settlement agreement is a strong
one. It will have an enormous, positive impact on the future of my
company and the entire software industry. My colleagues and I hope
we can rely on your support. Thank you, Senators, for the
opportunity to provide this statement at such a critical for our
nation.
Thank You,
MARK HAVLICEK
PRESIDENT
DIGITAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
920 MORGAN STREET, SUITE N
DES MOINES, IA 50309
515-243-3622 PHONE
515-243-1.028 FAX
[email protected]
MTC-00033734--0173
DDR
Testimony by
[Jerry Hilburn, President and Founder]
Catfish Software, Inc.
Provided to the
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
December 12, 2001
I am very, pleased to provide a written statement for ),our
hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the
Future.'' Thank you, Chairman Leah{time} , and Members of the
Committee, for the opportunity, to deliver a small businessperson's
perspective on the case before this distinguished group.
I would like to tell you my point of view on the Microsoft case.
I am a small businessman in San Diego, California. Catfish Software,
Inc. started operations in 1994 providing network services and
custom database applications for small business. In 1998, Catfish
Software launched an E-mail Application Services branch providing
double opt- in mail list service and web-based customer support
applications and today, Catfish Software provides support to 300+
companies reaching 2,000,000+ subscribers of its software services.
One of my firm's top competitors is Microsoft's bCentral. So you
may ask why I speak in favor of the Microsoft settlement. Businesses
large and small have mortgaged their futures against the impact of
the terrorist war. Some smaller businesses--techology and
otherwise--have already found themselves strangled by a lack of
consumer demand and by slowdowns in corporate and consumer spending.
Most of us are finding it is time to shore up resources and protect
our assets from the impact of the war.
In this time of so much uncertainty, we need the promise of a
brighter day and the knowledge that the government--from the
federal level on down- is doing everything possible to invigorate
our flagging economy. Competition and consumer preference should
decide the direction of the marketplace and meanwhile, the
government should not rush to intervene in the New Economy. The last
thing our economy needs at this time is the burden of remedies which
do nothing but slow the pace of development and limit the choices of
consumers.
The Justice Department handled this case admirably, and the
settlement they agreed upon is sound. The settlement outlines how
Microsoft can operate, but more importantly it provides some
assurances to an industry that has been on unstable ground lately.
Microsoft's ability to design and produce new software in turn
creates opportunities for small and medium-sized developers to write
applications which operate on a Windows- based platform. As the old
saying goes, a high tide floats all ships. Calls for break-up of the
company did not help the already tenuous situation. And when
Microsoft looked like it might be pulled under, the Nasdaq was hit
as well as the stocks of many high-tech companies. But when
announcements of the settlement were made public around the
beginning of November 2001, everyone got a nice little bump.
Consumers and other technology entrepreneurs were hopeful that this
case could be put to bed and that the tech sector could get back to
business.
This litigation that has been an albatross around all our necks
for so long--and ending the string of lawsuits associated with
it--will have a positive effect on the tech economy. With a
little luck, that will ripple out to America's economy as a whole.
With so many technologies poised to enter the marketplace,
Microsoft and many others, including Catfish Software are looking
for ways to enhance the computing experience. The Internet has
become a center of most everyone's daily lives--from toddlers
typing their first strokes with learning games to seniors learning
how to send and receive e-mail. Untapped markets and unimagined
ideas abound, but we must not harness the creativity or the ability
of software firms to bring those products to bear in the
marketplace. The olive branch of settlement was extended, and it is
a solution that is good for the economy and good for the tech
industry. Allow us the opportunity to get back to work and earn
money with our products and ideas once again.
This concludes my testimony. Once again, I thank the Committee
and its distinguished Members for the opportunity to provide written
testimony on this important issue.
HTC-00033734--0175
CompTIA(r)
North Fairfax Drive, Suite 440
Arlington, VA 22203-1624
Tel (703) 812-1333 Fax (703) 812-1337
[email protected]
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Written Testimony Submitted by the Computing Technology Industry
Association in Connection with Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearings December 12, 2001
Prepared by
Lars H. Liebeler, Esq.
Thaler Liebeler LLP
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
CompTIA Antitrust Counsel
(202) 828-9867
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTLA) is the
world's largest trade association in the information technology and
communications sector. CompTIA represents over 8,000 hardware and
software manufacturers, distributors, retailers, Internet,
telecommunications, IT training and other service companies in over
50 countries. The overwhelming majority of CompTIA members are
resellers--companies that resell software and hardware to
consumers, businesses, or other resellers.
[[Page 30229]]
These resellers are vendor-neutral and their objective is to be able
to sell whatever products their customers wish to buy. In that sense
they believe that antitrust laws should focus primarily on consumer
impact rather than competitor impact. Microsoft is a member of
CompTIA as are many of Microsoft's competitors.
In 1998, CompTIA's Board of Directors adopted a formal policy
statement on antitrust. That statement supports sensible antitrust
enforcement that is based on demonstrable economic effects in the
marketplace. CompTIA believes that market forces typically correct
any temporary market imperfections and that government regulators
should only intervene in the technology marketplace when there is
overwhelming evidence of a substantial and pervasive market failure.
Pursuant to its policy statement, CompTIA has written and spoken
frequently on antitrust issues of relevance to the technology
sector. In June 1998, CompTIA filed an amicus brief in the Intel v.
Intergraph litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. In that case CompTLA urged the court to reject a lower
court's finding that antitrust allegations could be a basis for
ordering a company to disclose its valuable intellectual property.
CompTLA filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the United States v.
Microsoft case in November 2000. The amicus brief urged the Court of
Appeals to reverse the District Court's order breaking Microsoft
into two separate companies and further urged the Court of Appeals
to reverse the liability findings against Microsoft. The basis for
CompTIA's participation as amicus and submission of this testimony
to the Committee is its interest in the overall health and
prosperity of the technology sector.
The antitrust case against Microsoft and the final remedies that
will be imposed upon Microsoft have a direct effect on the overall
health and prosperity of the technology sector. First, because
Microsoft is such a large and important participant in the
technology industry, any remedy that affects the company's
operations necessarily affects the industry,, Microsoft's vendors,
and all companies that rely on Microsoft products. A remedial order
that goes beyond the issues in the case may have a significantly
detrimental effect upon innovation and growth in the industry.
Second, the precedent established in this case has important
ramifications for future activities in the technology sector. Overly
restrictive sanctions imposed upon Microsoft may act to inhibit
competitive behavior by other companies throughout the industry
thereby deterring conduct that promotes innovation and technological
development.
INTRODUCTION
On November 6, 2001 the United States Department of Justice and
nine States entered into a Proposed Final Judgment with the
Microsoft Corporation that resolves the antitrust charges brought by
those governmental entities against the company. In the days after
the settlement was announced, the nine non-settling States and the
District of Columbia expressed their intention to continue
litigation against Microsoft in an effort to convince the United
States District Court that more extensive remedies should be
ordered. On December 7, 2001 the non-settling States filed their
remedy proposal with the District Court.
This testimony analyzes the Court of Appeals opinion, the
November 6, 2001 Proposed Final Judgment, and the non-settling
States' remedy proposal and arrives at the following conclusions:
� The U.S. Court of Appeals June 28, 2001 opinion
reaffirmed that the central goal of the U.S. antitrust laws is not
to protect competitors from competition nor is it to penalize a
defendant. The central goal of the antitrust laws is to promote
competition in order to enhance consumer welfare.
� In order to support its remedy in the remand
proceeding now before the District Court, the Court of Appeals
opinion requires that the government show a significant causal
connection between Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct and actual
injury to competition and consumers in the marketplace. If the
government fails to prove a causal connection, then the remedy
imposed can be no more broad than an order enjoining the specific
anticompetitive conduct at issue.
� Given the risks to both sides from further
litigation, the November 6 Proposed Final Judgment is a reasonable
settlement of the remaining disputed issues in the case that insures
that Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct will not be repeated, and
insures that every market participant has a fair opportunity to
compete. The settlement also insures that the technology industry
will not be encumbered with excessive regulation that would stifle
innovation and growth.
� The additional remedies proposed by the non-
settling States on December 7 are not likely to enhance competition
or promote consumer welfare. The vast majority of the States'
proposals go far beyond the scope of the liability found by the
Court of Appeals and are thus legally unsupportable. Further, the
proposed remedies would likely interfere with natural market forces,
impose higher costs on consumers, impair innovation, and benefit
Microsoft's competitors at the expense of consumers.
I. SUMMARY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION
A. Background
On June 28, 2001 the United State Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (``Court of Appeals'') issued
its ruling in United States v. Microsoft. The Court of Appeals found
that Microsoft had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by taking
anticompetitive actions to protect its monopoly in the computer
operating system market. The Court, however, reversed the District
Court rulings entered adverse to Microsoft regarding tying,
attempted monopolization, and imposition of a break-up remedy. The
case has been remanded to the District Court for proceedings on the
appropriate remedy to address the monopoly maintenance findings.
While much of the Court of Appeal's opinion focuses on issues
that are specific to Microsoft, the Court made two preliminary yet
important observations with respect to antitrust enforcement
activities in the high-tech sector. First, the Court noted that
despite the relatively fast pace of the Microsoft proceedings, the
speed at which technologically dynamic markets undergo change is
even faster. The consequences of the speed at which the market
changes has significant implications for the conduct of antitrust
cases. This rapid change ``threatens enormous practical
difficulties for courts considering the appropriate measure of
relief in equitable enforcement actions, both in crafting injunctive
remedies in the first instance and reviewing those remedies in the
second.'' Opinion at 10-11.
Because technology moves so quickly there is little likelihood
that a company with large market share at any given time can engage
in anticompetitive exclusionary behavior that causes consumer
injury. In many instances a more desirable successor technology may
very rapidly displace a large market share company before that
company is even able to attempt to exercise monopoly power.
Second, the Court also noted that competition in the technology
marketplace is frequently ``competition for the market''
rather than ``competition in the market.'' This means that
there is intense competition between firms when a new product is
introduced, but once consumers choose the firm that makes the best
product, that firm will likely gamer the vast majority of market
share. This ``network effect'' phenomenon means that as
more users utilize a compatible and inter-operable system or
service, the value to each user increases. Opinion at 11-12.
Thus, the Court of Appeals made clear that lawful monopolies and
companies with large market shares are frequently desirable and
highly beneficial to consumers. Opinion at 11.
The Court of Appeal's inclusion of this theoretical discussion
is a broad response to the question that many have asked since the
beginning of the Microsoft case--that is, do the antitrust
laws, written and applied predominantly in a brick-and-mortar era,
have the same level of relevance in the information technology era?
The answer is mixed. The antitrust laws do apply to the new economy,
but the application of the rules must take into account economic
realities and to insure that the objectives of antitrust are
achieved: the protection and enhancement of competition as measured
by consumer welfare.
The most dramatic illustration of the application of antitrust
to the new economy was in the Court's rulings on the tying claim and
in reversing the lower court's remedial order. The Court's
application of a rule of reason analysis (rather than per se
treatment) for tying claims while at the same time rejecting the
``separate products'' test marks a significant recognition
that product integration in the technology sector is likely to have
benefits to consumers that outweigh any harms to competition.
Additionally, the Court's analysis in rejecting the lower court's
break-up order suggests that absent a strong showing of a causal
connection between anticompetitive acts and Microsoft's dominant
position in the operating system market, radical structural relief
or extensive conduct restrictions that go beyond the challenged
conduct would be unsupportable.
[[Page 30230]]
B. Monopoly Maintenance
The Court of Appeals affirmed in large measure the District
Court's ruling that Microsoft acted unlawfully to maintain its
monopoly in the operating system market. The Court found that
Microsoft viewed Netscape Navigator Internet browser as a potential
threat to the Windows operating system because it could conceivably
have become an intermediate platform (with exposed application
programming interfaces or API's) for the development of software
applications. In order to promote Internet Explorer and retard the
distribution of Netscape Navigator, Microsoft placed restrictions on
original equipment manufacturers (OEM's). OEM's were not permitted
to remove the Internet Explorer icon or install a Navigator icon on
the desktop.
The Court also found that the way in which Internet Explorer was
integrated into Windows was unlawful. Beginning with the release of
Windows 98, Microsoft removed Internet Explorer from the list of
programs that could be accessed using in the add/delete program
feature. The Court found that this had the effect of impeding the
inclusion of rival browsers on a computer because OEM's were
reluctant to place two Internet browsers on the desktop. Because
Microsoft did not offer any pro-competitive justification for
preventing the removal of Internet Explorer, the Court found this
feature unlawful. The Court also found that Microsoft's dealings
with some independent software vendors, Apple Computer Corp., Java,
and Intel were designed solely to protect its operating system
monopoly and therefore those dealings violated Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.
Shortly after the Court of Appeals decision was released,
Microsoft announced that it would modify its release of Windows XP
to respond to the Court of Appeals rulings in the monopoly
maintenance section of the opinion. Thus, OEM's now are permitted to
have more control over the appearance of the Windows desktop; they
may add icons for competing software and on-line services and delete
the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop. OEM's and consumers
also have the ability to remove Internet Explorer icon from a
computer using the 1 Shortly after the Court of Appeals issued its
ruling, Microsoft asked the court to reconsider the finding that
Microsoft had unlawfully ``commingled'' code from Internet
Explorer and Windows.
Microsoft argued that as a factual matter the District Court was
incorrect in finding that Microsoft actually had placed Windows code
and Internet Explorer code in the same libraries in order to prevent
IE from being removed. The Court of Appeals denied Microsoft's
petition for rehearing on this issue but wrote that Microsoft could
raise this issue on remand with respect to the appropriate remedy in
the case.
Microsoft's actions in allowing OEM's and/or consumers to remove
the Internet Explorer icon and program link (and the inclusion of
that concession in the settlement agreement) appears to address the
Court's concerns regarding exclusion of rival browsers. Thus, any
interpretation of the Court of Appeals decision to require that
Microsoft re-engineer Windows to duplicate shared code functions and
then remove the IE code (as the non-settling States interpretation
does) would be inconsistent with the language and policy of the
opinion as a whole. Further, the Court of Appeals found that shared
library files that perform functions for both the operating system
and the browser enhance efficiency. Opinion at 73.
C. Attempted Monopolization
The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the District Court's
finding that Microsoft unlawfully attempted to monopolize the
Internet browser market. Opinion at 62-68. The District Court
had found that Microsoft's 1995 proposal to divide the browser
market with Netscape created a dangerous probability of monopoly and
that Microsoft's aggressive marketing of Internet Explorer after
June 1995 also created a dangerous probability of monopoly. But the
Court of Appeals found that the government had failed to properly
identify the relevant market including reasonable substitutes for
Internet browsers. Further, the Court also found that there was no
showing of significant barriers to entry in any putative browser
market.
The Court's ruling on attempted monopolization has significant
implications for future business activities in the technology
sector. If the District Court rule had been upheld, the resulting
rule would have made it virtually per se unlawful for successful
firms to explore collaborative relationships with emerging
competitors. Further, it would permit a ``dangerous probability
of success'' to be proven simply by showing that a firm has
secured a 50-60 percent market share without requiring any
showing that the firm will ever be in a position to exercise market
power- that is, the power to raise price and exclude competitors.
Both propositions would have had serious adverse repercussions for
the IT industry and would have likely blocked countless pro-
competitive competitor collaborations that would benefit consumers.
Shortly after the Court of Appeals issued its ruling, Microsoft
asked the court to reconsider the finding that Microsoft had
unlawfully ``commingled'' code from Internet Explorer and
Windows. Microsoft argued that as a factual matter the District
Court was incorrect in finding that Microsoft actually had placed
Windows code and Internet Explorer code in the same libraries in
order to prevent IE from being removed. The Court of Appeals denied
Microsoft's petition for rehearing on this issue but wrote that
Microsoft could raise this issue on remand with respect to the
appropriate remedy in the case. Microsoft's actions in allowing
OEM's and/or consumers to remove the Internet Explorer icon and
program link (and the inclusion of that concession in the settlement
agreement) appears to address the Court's concerns regarding
exclusion of rival browsers. Thus, any interpretation of the Court
of Appeals decision to require that Microsoft re-engineer Windows to
duplicate shared code functions and then remove the IE code (as the
non-settling States interpretation does) would be inconsistent with
the language and policy of the opinion as a whole. Further, the
Court of Appeals found that shared library files that perform
functions for both the operating system and the browser enhance
efficiency. Opinion at 73.
D. Tying
The District Court found that Microsoft's inclusion of Internet
Explorer with Windows was a per se unlawful tying arrangement. The
Court of Appeals reversed this conclusion and ruled that per se
analysis was inappropriate for arrangements involving platform
software products. Because the inclusion of added functionality into
software products has the potential to be pro-competitive and
generate vast consumer benefits, integration in this area must be
judged under the rule of reason. The Court of Appeals remanded the
tying claim to the District Court for analysis under the rule of
reason. Opinion at 68-90. Under the rule of reason, however,
future antitrust plaintiffs must bear a heavy burden to prove that
software integration unlawful.
Historically tying arrangements have been deemed per se
unlawful. But the Court properly recognized that software products
are ``novel categories of dealings'' and that this case
provided the ``first up-close look at the technological
integration of added functionality into software that serves as a
platform for third-party applications. There being no close parallel
in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of per se tying
rules carries a serious risk of harm.'' Opinion at 69. The
Court also noted the benefits from software integration:
``undling obviously saves distribution and consumer transaction
costs.'' Opinion at 73.
In recognizing the potential benefits from integration, the
Court then determined that the ``separate products'' test
under Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2
(1984)-- that is, if the tying and tied products are
``separate products'' then the integration is
unlawful-- was not appropriate for platform software analysis.
Finally, the Court of Appeals issued precise instructions to the
District Court in considering the tying in the event the government
were to pursue the claim on remand. Those instructions preclude the
plaintiffs from arguing any theory of anti-competitive harm based on
a precise definition of the browser market or barriers to entry in
the putative browser market. Opinion at 87. Faced with this new
legal standard, the United States, on September 6, 2001, announced
that it would not pursue the tying claim on remand.
In sum, adding new functions to existing software is a nearly
universal form of innovation in the software industry and is
essential in persuading customers to upgrade from their existing
software to a new, improved version. For example, word processing
programs have incorporated formerly separate spell-checkers and
outliners, personal finance programs have incorporated tax
functions, internet service providers have incorporated instant
messaging features, database software companies are integrating
their databases with their applications server, and e-mail programs
have incorporated contact managers. If companies that gain a
``dominant'' position in a given field were
[[Page 30231]]
barred from innovating in this manner, consumers would be denied new
benefits that result from integration, and the software industry
would stagnate. The Court of Appeals rejection of a per se rule for
platform software integration, and the government's subsequent
decision to drop that claim on remand, insures that teleological
innovation will be permitted to continue and provide consumers
additional benefits.
E. Remedy
The Court of Appeals fundamentally altered the basis of
liability found by the District Court and thus the structural and
conduct remedies imposed by the lower court were reversed. Opinion
at 106. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that an antitrust
remedy must focus on restoring competition and the District Court
must explain how its remedy will do so. Opinion at 99-100.
Central to the inquiry of how to restore competition is the
identification of specific injury to the competitive process by the
defendant's behavior. Thus, the Court of Appeals directed the
District Court on remand to make a finding of a ``causal
connection'' when assessing an appropriate remedy. Opinion at
105.
While the Court of Appeals left the District Court with a large
measure of discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy on remand,
there are repeated and clear directions that the evidence necessary
to sustain a structural remedy or extensive conduct remedy must be
very strong. Opinion at 105-06. Faced with this language, the
United States announced on September 6, 2001 that it would no longer
seek break up of Microsoft. The individual States have also dropped
their demand for a structural remedy.
The remaining issue for the new District Court judge on remand,
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is to fashion an appropriate remedy for the
monopoly maintenance findings that were affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Here too the Court of Appeals has provided some general
guidance. The appropriate remedy for Microsoft's antitrust
violations may be ``an injunction against continuation of that
conduct.'' Opinion at 105. The language cited by the non-
settling States that the unlawful monopoly ``must be
terminated'' would only apply in the context of a demand for
structural relief. The non-settling States have not made a demand
for structural relief, nor have they made a showing of a causal
connection between Microsoft's unlawful behavior and actual harm in
the marketplace.
II. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
After the November 6, 2001 Proposed Final Judgment was announced
many of Microsoft's competitors complained that the settlement was
too lenient. The settlement, however, should not be designed as a
wish list for Microsoft's competitors. The settlement should fairly
address the areas of liability found by the Court of Appeals.
Anything less would encourage Microsoft and other companies to
engage in anticompetitive conduct in the future; anything more would
inappropriately imperil the teleology marketplace, cause harm to
consumers, and likely be struck down by the Court of Appeals.
Additionally, the settlement necessarily takes into account the fact
that the issue of causation has not yet been decided by the Court.
In light of the scope of the Court of Appeals decision and the
uncertainty facing both sides from further litigation, the November
6 Proposed Final Judgment is a reasonable compromise of the
antitrust litigation.
The November 6 Proposed Final Judgment addresses the liability
issues in the monopoly maintenance section of the Court of Appeals
decision, and correctly does not seek to impose a remedy related to
other areas in which Microsoft prevailed on appeal--attempted
monopolization and tying.
First, the settlement prohibits Microsoft from retaliating
against any OEM because of the OEM's participation in promoting or
developing non-Microsoft middleware or a non-Microsoft operating
system. This provision takes the ``club'' out of
Microsoft's hand and prevents the company from using anticompetitive
means to discourage OEM's from promoting or preventing rival
software from being developed or installed on Windows desktop. This
anti-retaliation provision deals head on with most of the conduct
the Court of Appeals found to be illegal in the monopoly maintenance
section of its June 28, 2001 opinion.
Second, Microsoft is obligated to adhere to one uniform license
agreement for Windows with all OEM's and the royalty for the license
shall be made publically available on a web site accessible by all
OEM's. The price schedule may vary for volume discounts and for
those OEM's who are eligible for market development allowances in
connection with Windows products. This allows Microsoft to continue
to compete in the middleware market with other middleware
manufacturers and this competition will continue to benefit
consumers.
Third, OEM's are permitted to alter the appearance of the
Windows desktop to add icons, shortcuts and menu items for non-
Microsoft middleware, and they may establish non-Microsoft programs
as default programs in Windows. Consumers also have the option of
removing the interface with an)'' Microsoft middleware product.
Fourth, Microsoft must reveal the API's used by Microsoft
middleware to interoperate with the Windows operating system.
Microsoft must also offer to license its intellectual property
rights to any entity who has need for the intellectual property to
insure that their products will interoperate with the Windows
operating system. These central features of the settlement insure
that other companies have the ability to challenge Microsoft
products, both in the operating system and middleware / applications
markets. Consumers and OEM's have far greater freedom to instal and
use non-Microsoft products, Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating
against any entity who promotes non-Microsoft programs, and all
companies have equal access to Microsoft API's and technical
information so that non-Microsoft middleware has the same
opportunity to perform as well as Microsoft middleware.
The enforcement mechanisms of the settlement will enable the
plaintiffs to insure Microsoft's compliance with the agreement.
Representatives of the United States and the States may inspect
Microsoft's books, records, source code or any other item to insure
compliance with the settlement terms. In addition, an independent
three person technical committee will be established to insure that
Microsoft complies with all terms of the settlement agreement. The
technical committee will have full access to all Microsoft source
code, books and records, and personnel and can report to the United
States and/or the States any violation of the settlement by
Microsoft.
III. SUMMARY OF THE NON-SETTLING STATES'' DECEMBER 7 PROPOSAL
While the November 6 Proposed Final Judgment goes beyond the
liability found by the Court of Appeals in some areas (i.e., by
requiring Microsoft to disclose its confidential technical
information to software developers), the non-settling States''
proposal filed on December 7, 2001 goes so far beyond the judgment
as to bear little relationship to the Court of Appeals decision.
The centerpiece of the states'' remedy demand is that
Microsoft be compelled to create and market a stripped down version
of its Windows operating system that would not include many of the
features that current versions of Windows do include. Since
consumers can now easily remove Microsoft features from their
desktop and OEM's are free to place non-Microsoft programs on the
desktop, it is difficult to see how this requirement would benefit
consumers.
Instead of giving consumers more choices of software products,
this unwarranted intrusion into marketing and design decision by the
non-settling States would cause further delays in the development of
software created to run on XP, with developers waiting to see which
version would become the standard. Such delays would further
postpone the salutary effects of XP on the computer market. It would
also hamper programmers'' ability to take full advantage of
technological improvements in Windows, creating a marketplace in
which the same software applications would not perform equally. This
remedy would balkanize the computing industry and would undermine
the benefits consumers obtain from a standardized operating
platform.
In addition to the stripped down version of Windows, the
December 7 proposal would also require Microsoft to continue
licensing and supporting prior versions of Windows for five years
after the introduction of a new version of Windows. The primary
effect of this requirement is to impose unnecessary costs upon
Microsoft (that would likely be passed on to consumers) and reduce
the incentives for Microsoft to improve the operating system. This
disincentive to Microsoft to make technological advances would
ripple throughout the software industry as applications developers
would not have an advancing platform to write software to.
The non-settling States remedy proposal also includes a variety
of restrictions that will have little if any quantifiable benefit to
consumers but which will simply advance the interests of Microsoft
competitors. Consumers and OEM's currently have full
[[Page 30232]]
ability and freedom to include Java software on their computers; the
States'' requirement that Microsoft carry Java on all copies of
Windows does not provide consumers or OEM's with any more choice
than they already have. Similarly, the requirement that Microsoft
continue to produce an Office Suite for Macintosh interferes with
natural market forces that direct resources to the best use and may
actually preclude the success of competing applications software.
Directing Microsoft to produce and support any software without
regard for market forces is likely to harm consumers, not help them.
Moreover, the November 6 Proposed Judgment fully addresses and
prevents Microsoft from retaliating or taking any anticompetitive
actions against Apple.
Advances in technology are frequently made as a result of joint
ventures between competitors. The Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission have recently released guidelines for the
formation of such joint ventures. Notwithstanding the recognition by
these enforcement agencies that most joint ventures are pro-
competitive, the non-settling States seek to restrict Microsoft from
entering into joint ventures whereby the parties to the joint
venture agree not to compete with the product that is the subject of
the joint venture. This restriction will chill innovation and
prohibit countless consumer welfare enhancing arrangements. Further,
this proposal flatly ignores the fact that the Court of Appeals
found in Microsoft's favor on the issue of the alleged illegality of
its joint venture proposal to Netscape.
The most harmful of the remaining remedy proposals include those
that require the extensive and mandatory sharing of Microsoft's
intellectual property. The non-settling States proposals in this
regard go well beyond those in the November 6 Proposed Final
Judgment and appear to be aimed at benefitting Microsoft's
competitors rather than insuring a level playing field for all
participants in the software industry. In the absence of compelling
justification for wholesale and forced disclosure of a company's
intellectual property, the harm caused by such disclosure is
unwarranted and harmful to the entire technology marketplace. The
vigorous protection of intellectual property has fueled the rapid
and dynamic growth of the technology industry. Actions that erode
protections for intellectual property should be viewed with great
trepidation.
The long term effects of the conduct restrictions proposed by
the non-settling States encourage continued litigation, rather than
competition in the marketplace.
CONCLUSION
The Microsoft settlement and any remedies imposed must be judged
in the context of the Court of Appeals opinion. The non-settling
States remedial proposals go well beyond the liability found by the
Court of Appeals. The Microsoft case, and this Committee hearing,
should not be a forum for any government actor, no matter how well-
intentioned, to try to reconfigure the marketplace based on
guesswork and supposition. History has told us time and time again
that movement's efforts to micro-manage markets are far more likely
to fail than to succeed. Consumers stand to lose the most.
The Plaintiffs have never challenged Microsoft's acquisition of
its dominant position in the operating system market. Microsoft was
propelled into this position as a result of consumer choice.
Consumers derive great benefit from the adoption of a standardized
operating system platform. State antitrust officials and the courts
should be wary of imposing remedies that would interfere with the
positive network effects resulting from the large number of
consumers who choose Windows.
Government intervention in the marketplace can only be justified
if the intervention is a reasonably accurate proxy for the actions
that would occur in a competitive market. Otherwise, the unintended
consequences of well-meaning government intervention are very likely
to do more harm than good. It is simply beyond the capability of the
courts and regulators to predict the direction and development of
almost any market, let alone the highly dynamic markets in the
technology industry. This counsels against the extensive and rigid
conduct restrictions proposed by the non-settling States.
Statement of Dave Baker
Vice President for Law and Public Policy
EarthLink, Inc.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
My name is Dave Baker and I am Vice President for Law and Public
Policy with EarthLink. EarthLink is the nation's 3rd largest
Internet Service Provider, bringing reliable high-speed internet
connections to approximately 4.8 million subscribers every day.
Headquartered in Atlanta, EarthLink provides a full range of
innovative access, hosting and e-commerce solutions to thousands of
communities over a nationwide network of dial-up points of presence,
as well as high-speed access and wireless technologies.
EarthLink is concerned with the potential for Microsoft to use
its affirmed monopoly position in operating systems to leverage its
position in innovative Internet services provided by Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) including Internet access and associated
services.
The proposed Justice Department settlement with Microsoft allows
them to continue to restrict competition and choice in ISP services
by failing to classify e-mail client software and Internet access
software as ``middleware''. By not including e-mail client
and internet access software in the definition of middleware, this
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to force OEMs to carry
Microsoft's own ISP service, Microsoft Network (MSN), while
restricting them from carrying competing e-mail client software or
internet access software. The federal settlement also allows
Microsoft to prohibit OEMs from removing the MSN from their
products.
The alternate settlement proposed by nine States and the
District of Columbia would define middleware to include e-mail
client software and Internet access software, thereby preserving
competition in these markets. This distinction in the definition of
middleware makes a huge difference given the diverse nature of the
ISP marketplace. Many ISPs will never find a place on the Microsoft
desktop if Microsoft can prohibit OEMs from including competing e-
mail client software and Internet access software, or if Microsoft
is able to make such software incompatible with the Windows
operating system.
ISPs provide distinct and valuable services beyond mere Internet
connectivity. For example, ISPs provide specialized content, web
hosting, e-commerce, content specialized for wireless access, and
other innovative new products. ISPs provide free local computer and
Internet classes for their customers, include local content on their
home page, or provide free connections for community groups.
EarthLink, while serving a broad range of users across the country,
has made greater privacy protection a distinguishing feature of its
ISP service. This diverse choice of service and source of future
innovation is at risk if Microsoft is able to leverage its existing
monopoly power in operating systems to all but force consumers to
use its Internet access service, MSN, at the expense of other
choices in internet service.
Over the past few years, Microsoft has bundled its internet
service more and more closely with succeeding versions of the
Windows operating system. This has allowed Microsoft to constrict
consumer choice in Internet access providers. In Windows 98,
consumers had a choice of several ISPs from which to select for
Internet access. Each ISP was listed in the same manner, with equal
sized boxes on a referral server screen. In Windows Me, the MSN
butterfly icon was the only ISP icon featured right on the desktop,
giving it an advantage shared by no other ISP. Consumer had to click
down through several screens to find other ISPs. Now, Windows XP has
a dialogue boxes that pops up and several times to try to sway
consumers to sign up for MSN internet service. While it is possible
to select another ISP, this choice is buried and requires greater
effort and diligence on the part of the consumer. This illustrates
how Microsoft can use its control of the desktop to promote its own
Internet access and related content, applications and services.
Under the proposed federal settlement, even this limited choice
can be eliminated by Microsoft, since they would be free to restrict
OEMs from offering other ISPs on the desktop or from removing
Microsoft's own icons from the desktop.
On a related topic, Microsoft recently offered to settle
numerous lawsuits by donating computer equipment to schools. Apple
Computer has raised concerns that this donation would give Microsoft
an inappropriate advantage in gaining greater market share for its
operating system in the competitive school marketplace. EarthLink is
also concerned that Microsoft would use the proposed computer
donations (a good thing) to their own advantage by providing these
schools with a product that bundles Internet access with equipment
and operating software. This would again unfairly steer consumers,
including as here those least able
[[Page 30233]]
to exercise choice in their internet applications, into using just
associated Microsoft products.
We note that the E-Rate, the federal grant program for school
connectivity, requires that schools be allowed to purchase Internet
access from a range of competitive providers. The movement's clear
intent is for schools to have a choice of competitive Internet
access providers, in order to promote the broadest selection of
services, diversity and choice of features, and lowest prices for
Internet access. This intent would be undermined if Microsoft uses
its proposed computer donations as a ``Trojan horse'' to
install yet more of its own e-mail client and Internet access
software. We encourage the preservation of choice for these schools
and their students in their selection of Internet access and related
services.
EarthLink is concerned that just as Microsoft used its Windows
operating system monopoly to force consumers to use the Microsoft
browser, Internet Explorer, at the expense of competitors such as
Netscape Navigator, Microsoft is now seeking to use the same
leverage to force consumers to use their Internet service provider,
MSN. EarthLink supports the alternate settlement proposed by the
nine States to preserve competition in the market for email client
software and Internet access software by including these services in
the definition of middleware. As it considers the future of the
Internet marketplace, we encourage the Committee not to allow
Microsoft to leverage its existing monopoly into new and evolving
Internet services. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share
our views with the Committee.
BRIEFING
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN
U.S. v. 31ICROSOFT
December, 2001
STATUS OF THE CASE
The U.S. Government and approximately half of the litigating
states have decided to settle the case with Microsoft on terms the
software industry views as inadequate under the standards for relief
under decades of antitrust precedent. Nine states plus the District
of Columbia have chosen to move forward with a hearing on remedy.
Discovery is underway for that hearing and witness lists are
currently being prepared for a trial set to commence in early March.
Pursuant to the District Court's order, the United States must
simultaneously submit the settlement under the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act, which is described below.
THE TUNNEY ACT
The Tunney Act, formally known as the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, was originally introduced by Senator John Tunney in
September, 1972, and was signed into law by President Ford on
December 21, 1974. The relevant sections of the Tunney Act were
passed in part as a reaction to the scandal that erupted after the
government settled its antitrust investigation of ITT (on grounds
very favorable to the defendant), and it was discovered that ITT had
lobbied extensively and engaged in secret negotiations to pressure
the Department of Justice to agree to that settlement.
Microsoft has made no secret of the political influence it has
sought to create during this trial. Its political contributions,
lobbying, grassroots, and public relations efforts are unprecedented
and well documented.3 Some might say there is an obvious and direct
The Tunney Act also made certain antitrust violations felonies,
rather than misdemeanors; increased the available penalties a court
could impose; and instituted a variety of procedural reforms
designed to expedite the trial and appeal of government antitrust
cases. 2 See Kintner, Federal Antitrust Law 40.25 at 208 n.721; 5
Von Kalinowski et al., Antirust Laws and Trade Regulation 2d
96.0311] at 96-12 n.4. 3 ``Microsoft Targets Funding for
Antitrust Office.'' Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin. Washington
Post October 15.1999. ``Pro-Microsoft 1obbving. to limit
antitrust funding irks, top lawmakers.'' The Wall Street
Journal October 15. 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ
Case.'' Madeleine Acer.
TechWeb September 20, 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads
Backing Its Trial Position.'' David Bank. The Wall Street
Journal September 20, 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing It
In Trial.'' Seattle Times September 19, 1999. ``Pro-
Microsoft Ads Were Funded by Software Giant.'' Greg Miller. Los
Angeles Times September 18. 1999. ``Microsoft Paid for Ads
About Trial.'' Associated Press September 18. 1999.
``Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust
Suit.'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times September 18, 1999
``Rivals fear Microsoft will cut a deal.'' John Hendren.
The Seatile Times June 21, 2001. ``Bush's Warning: Don't Assume
Favors Are Due.'' Gerald F. Seib The Wall Street Journal
January 17. 2001. ``Bounty Payments are offered for pro-
Microsoft letters and calls.'' The Wall Street Journal October
20, 2000. ``Microsoft is Source of ``Soft Money''
Funds Behind Ads in Michigan's Senate Race.'' John R. Wilke.
The Wall Street Journal October 16, 2000. ``Microsoft leans
creatively on levers of political power as breakup decision looms,
``stealth'' lobbying efforts aim for survival.'' Jim
Drinkard and Owen Ulmann. USA Today May 30, 2000. ``Microsoft's
All-Out Counterattack.'' Dan Carney. Amy Borrus and Jay Greene.
BusinessWeek May 15, 2000. ``Aggressiveness: It's Part of Their
DNA.'' Jay Greene, Peter Burrows and Jim Kerstetter.
BusinessWeek May 15. 2000. ``The Unseemly Campaign of
Microsoft.'' Mike France. Business Week April 24. 2000.
``Microsoft's Lobbving Abuses.'' Editorial. New York Times
November 1, 1999 ``Awaiting Verdict, Microsoft Starts Lobbying
Campaign.'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times November 1, 1999.
``Microsoft Seeks Help Of Holders.'' John R. Wilke. The
Wall Street Journal November 1.1999. causal connection between these
activities and the weak nature of the proposed settlement, proving
if nothing else that the public policy concerns that spawned the
Tunney Act in the first place have been validated. Judge Kollaar-
Kotelly will be charged with the responsibility of determining the
extent to which the public interest has been affected by the
unprecedented politicization of this law enforcement matter. As the
Senate Report that accompanied the Tunney Act explained,
``[t]he primary focus of the Department [of Justice]'s
enforcement policy should be to obtain a judgment either litigated
or consensual--which protects the public by insuring healthy
competition in the future.'' While Congress did not want to
discourage settlement of antitrust litigation--significantly
more than half of government antitrust suits are settled -- it
determined that judges should independently review all settlement
agreements, with adequate involvement by the public and others in
the relevant industry, before entering a consent judgment.
Under the Tunney Act, the United States needs to publicize the
settlement agreement, invite and respond to public and industry,
comments on the details of that agreement, and defend the agreement
in court--where the judge by statute would need to determine
independently that the agreement was in the ``public
interest.''
Even though Judge Kollar-Kotelly urged both sides to settle the
case, the goal of any settlement must be to achieve the public
interest objectives of the lawsuit more efficiently and with more
certainty that the litigation process. Merely achieving an end to
the litigation, and thus rewarding Microsoft for its intransigence
over the years is not a legitimate goal, nor should it play any part
in settlement analysis. In fact, the standards for review under the
Tunney Act are substantially higher in this case than in typical
Tunney Act cases. That is because there has never been a settlement
- and therefore Tunney Act review--of an antitrust case that
has been affirmed by an Appeals Court. Since there is no longer any
litigation risk--or question about liability or the strength of
the government's case the only appropriate interpretation of the
``public interest'' is in the context of the standards set
forth by the Court of Appeals. ``Microsoft's Bad
Lobbying.'' Editorial. Washington Post October 24 1999.
``Microsoft Attempt To Cut Justice Funding Draws Fire.''
David Lawsky. Reuters October 17, 1999. ``Microsoft Targets
Funding for Antitrust Office.'' Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin.
Washington Post October 15. 1999.
``Pro-Microsoft 1obbying to limit antitrust funding irks
top lawmakers.'' The Wall Street Journal October 15, 1999.
``Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ Case.'' Madeleine
Acev. TechWeb September 20. 1999.
``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing Its Trial Position.''
David Bank. The Wall Street Journal September 20, 1999.
``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing It In Trial.'' Seattle
Times September 19. 1999. ``Pro-Microsoft Ads Were Funded by
Software Giant.'' Greg Miller. Los Angeles Times September 18.
1999. ``Microsoft Paid for Ads About Trial.'' Associated
Press September 18.1999. ``Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads
Backing It in Antitrust Suit'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times
September 18. 1999.
SUMMARY OF THE WEAKNESSES OF THE PFJ's
In the sections following we discuss--provision-by-
provision--weaknesses in the Proposed Final Judgment. In this
section, we focus on the more important issues of What is not
included in the settlement in the first place. Remedy Ignores Clear
Guidance of
[[Page 30234]]
Court of Appeals The central issue with the proposed remedy is its
fundamental failure to meet the standards so clearly set forth by
the Court of Appeals. Rather, the Department of Justice has
articulated a view that all it must do is create a narrow set of
remedies, which merely prevents Microsoft from engaging in the
precise types of unlawful conduct against new competitive threats in
the future. This view ignores the fact that unrestrained monopolists
are likely to engage in new, creative forms of predation, which is
why the Supreme Court has admonished the Department of Justice to
``close the untraveled roads to monopolization, not just the
traveled roads.''
More troubling, the Department ignores the fact that competitive
threats to Microsoft's monopoly do not appear with regularity. In
fact, the dual threats of Netscape's Navigator browser and Sun's
Java programming language--propelled by the Internet
boom--may well be once in a lifetime competitive events. That
is one of many important reasons why it is particularly
inappropriate for the Department of Justice to allow Microsoft to
keep all the ``fruits'' of its unlawful activity without
any regard for the competitive impact on the industry or consumers.
Most industry observers have sadly reached the conclusion that
the Department of Justice was prepared and eager to settle this case
at an{time} , price. If permitted to stand, antitrust law
enforcement in the high-technology industry--which many have
described as the sector that now drives the economy--will be
effectively repealed. Future antitrust defendants will follow the
yellow brick road paved by Microsoft: deny that you are a monopoly
regardless of the court findings, outlast and outspending your
governmental adversaries and trust that sooner or later, the
government will accept a meaningless settlement primary for the sake
of settlement alone.
It is the responsibility of the Justice Department not to lose
interest in enforcing the laws necessary to insuring competition and
consumer choice. Settling on the cheap the most important antitrust
case in a generation in the most important industry in America is an
unwarranted abdication of responsibility. If permitted to stand,
consumers will pay the price for generations to come in the form of
diminished choices, higher prices, and stifled innovation.
No Remedy for the Browser or Java
The DoJ remedy is inadequate in the area of so-called
``middleware.'' ``Middleware'' is a critical
concept in this case because middleware is the software layer
that--in a competitive market--could undermine Microsoft's
ability to protect its monopoly. Both Netscape's Navigator and the
Java programming language were examples of middleware threats, yet
the Proposed Final Judgment is silent on both the Browser and Java.
These middleware and platform threats were the central focus of the
appeals court decision. It is insupportable to settle for a remedy
that the Department of Justice knows will not have any competitive
impact in the central markets at issue in the case.
Remedy Relies too Heavily on PC Companies (OEMs) As a general
matter, the middleware--and other remedies--imposed by the
Department of Justice relies far too heavily on PC companies
exercising flexibility in product design, rather than affirmatively
requiring Microsoft to comply with the antitrust laws. It is
possible--in fact, likely--to imagine a result where the
PC companies choose not to exercise their new rights under a
settlement. As a practical matter, that would leave the government
with no remedy for the most important parts of the Appeals Court's
ruling.
It is inappropriate for the government to
impose--transfer--its remedial obligations under the
antitrust laws to PC companies, which are wholly dependent upon the
monopolist. The DoJ seems more willing to impose the burden of
forcing Microsoft to comply with the antitrust laws on PC companies
rather than impose even the slightest restrictions on
Microsoft--the adjudicated monopolist--to change the way
it does business. As both an economic and a practical matter, the
PFJ imposes greater burdens on PC companies than it does on the
adjudicated monopolist Remedy/ow7ores Key Finding of the U.S. Court
of Appeals Nothing in the agreement prohibits Microsoft's
``commingling of code'' or binding of its middleware to
the OS. This was a major issue in the case; the Court of Appeals
specifically found Microsoft's commingling of browser and OS code to
be unlawful.
Microsoft petitioned the Appeals Court for a reheating on this
precise matter, which was summarily rejected by the court. And yet,
after the Court clearly ruled on the rehearing, the DOJ adopts
Microsoft's view--not the Courts. The settlement would
explicitly permit Microsoft's commingling of code to continue.
The danger of the absence of this provision is reinforced by
what is found in the definition ``U,'' stating that the
definition of what code comprises a Windows Operating System Product
``shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole
discretion.'' Thus, Microsoft can, over time, render all the
protections for middleware meaningless, by binding and commingling
code, and redefining the OS to include the bound/commingled
applications.
Remedy ``Requires'' or ``Mandates''
Microsoft to Continue Business As Usual Two of the key provisions of
the PFJ cited by DOJ as instrumental in restoring competition merely
require Microsoft continue to engage in business as usual. First,
DOJ points to the provision that allows PC companies and end users
to remove ``end user access'' to Microsoft middleware
(i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger,
etc). It is important to understand that all ``end user
access'' really means is the ability to remove the
``icon'' for the middleware application, not the
middleware itself. Second, DOJ ``grants'' the PC companies
``flexibility'' to add or remove icons on the Windows
desktop. On both points, it is apparently convenient for DOJ and
Microsoft to forget that most of this flexibility either previously
existed or was granted by Microsoft five months before the
settlement on July 11th (see appendix one).
Moreover, PC companies have always enjoyed the flexibility to
add icons to the Windows desktop. Amazingly, the PFJ actually makes
matters worse because it grants Microsoft the right to come back 14
days after a consumer buys a PC and--after confirmation from
the user--automatically deletes all the changes a PC company
made and restores the Microsoft software. You can imagine the prompt
now: Two weeks have passed since you bought >'our PC! Click on
the Icon if you want to enhance your PC with better more robust
multimedia capabilities from So, under this remedy, Microsoft gets
to undermine the choices made by PC companies and grants Microsoft a
``second bite at the apple'' to badger consumers
into-- unknowingly or unwittingly--switching back to
Microsoft's software.
Second, DOJ claims credit for ``requiring'' Microsoft
to disclose to third party software developers the Applications
Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Windows. A review of the
definitions reveals that the provision is essentially meaningless.
The API disclosure requirements for new versions of the Windows
operating systems must be disclosed in a ``timely
manner.'' A close examination of the definition of
``timely manner,'' exposes that this requirement is
triggered when Microsoft distributes beta copies of its software to
150,000 ``beta testers.'' Microsoft can be expected to
insure that the number of beta testers remains below 150,000, thus
exempting itself from the disclosure requirements in the first
place. More telling is the fact that Microsoft never ever had
150,000 ``beta testers'' for Windows XP, Windows
``98, or Windows ``95.
But astonishingly, DOJ apparently did not make the effort to
learn that Microsoft discloses information to third party software
developers anyway, through a program called the Microsoft Developers
Network (MSDN) (see http://www.msdn.microsoft.com). The MSDN program
is ``an essential resource for developers using Microsoft
tools, products, and technologies. It contains a bounty of technical
programming information, including sample code, documentation,
technical articles, and reference guides.'' Why does Microsoft
give out this information? Because the most important economic law
of the software industry is that the more programs you have running
on your platform (like Windows) the more valuable your platform is
relative to competitors. So, the more applications Microsoft has
running on Windows, the more valuable Windows becomes.
In the spring of 1995, Netscape requested from Microsoft the
APIs necessary to insure that its browser would work with the
Windows ``95, scheduled for later that year. Microsoft resisted
sharing this information for nearly a year, until well after Windows
``95 was released. Because Windows ``95 did not involve
150,000 beta testers, Netscape would not have had the right to
receive the critical APIs if this remedy had been in place in 1995.
Thus Microsoft's ability to arbitrarily withhold APIs from those
that would deign to enter into competition with Windows is left
intact.
Remedy Ignores Fundamental Economics of the Software Industry
The more developers that support Windows, the more valuable
Windows
[[Page 30235]]
becomes. That is the fundamental economic reality of the industry.
That is also why the ``flexibility'' to remove ``end
user access'' to Microsoft's applications is so woefully
inadequate. The fact is that under this remedy, regardless of
whether consumers or PC companies affirmatively decide to remove a
particular Microsoft middleware application (i.e. browsers, media
player, instant messenger, e-mail, etc.) DOJ's remedy permits all of
the code to remain. The impact of this decision is the third party
developers will always write software to the middleware platform
that is present on the largest number of PCs.
Under the PFJ, that middleware will always be Microsoft's
middleware and non- Microsoft's middleware threats will never have a
chance a attracting a large enough developer following to displace
Windows. In response to a question about this precise issue in the
Wall Street Journal, Charles James responded, ``I don't
care.'' (check either Nov. 11 or 12 WSJ).
Remedy is Unenforceable and Riddled with Loopholes
In addition, too many of the provisions require a mini-retrial
to be enforced. In numerous places throughout Section III, the
limitations on Microsoft's conduct are basically rephrased versions
of the Rule of Reason. In other words, the constraints on Microsoft
(once the exceptions are taken into account) devolve into a mandate
that Microsoft act ``reasonably.'' For example, in
III.F.2, Microsoft may place enter into restrictive agreements with
ISV's activities if they are ``reasonably necessary.''
Likewise, the Joint Venture provisions found in III.G. also
``reasonably necessary'' test.
Aside from the obvious concern about Microsoft's willingness to
do so given its track record, this formulation is problematic for
two other reasons. First, it does little more than restate existing
antitrust law (such provisions cannot be said to be
``remedial'' if they, in essence, are merely directives to
refrain from future illegal acts). And second, in terms of
enforcement, alleged violations of such ``be reasonable''
provisions can only be arrested through proceedings that will
become, in essence, mini-retrials of U.S. v. Microsoft itself.
Moreover, the proposed remedy follows timelines that are too
loose and too generous to a company with the engineering resources
and product-update capabilities of Microsoft. Microsoft is given
almost a year before making even the most modest changes. For
example, the ``icon'' remedy discussed above merely
requires Microsoft to allow PC companies and end users to remove the
icon for particular programs from the Windows desktop. This
functionality is readily available in Windows today. But even the
more significant step of including the ``icon'' in the
``add / remove'' utility would require a trivial degree of
engineering. Yet Microsoft is given a year--20 percent of the
term of the decree -to implement even this rudimentary changes.
Microsoft won the ``Browser War'' in less than a year. The
Devil is in the Definitions
There are literally dozens of provisions that sound promising
until the definitions reveal that in fact Microsoft has sole
discretion to determine whether or not the provisions are triggered
at all. Just a few obvious examples:
As discussed above, the API disclosure requirements for new
versions of the Windows operating systems are triggered only when
Microsoft distributes beta copies of its software to 150,000
``beta testers.'' Microsoft can be certain to stop beta
distribution well before those unprecedented number of testers
receive beta copies in the first place. And even if Microsoft
accidentally distributed 150,000 beta versions of Windows, the term
``beta tester'' is not defined anyway, giving Microsoft
yet another obvious way to evade the disclosure
provisions--which again are being touted as the centerpiece of
the agreement.
Probably the most gratuitous provision comes at the last line of
the PFJ. Definition ``U'' of the Windows Operating System
Product definition, states: ``The software code that comprises
a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft
in its sole discretion.'' This language, of course, has no
practical import for the purposes of the PFJ except that it lets
Microsoft evade many of the settlements provisions. It also strikes
most observers as odd that an antitrust decree grants explicitly
grants complete latitude to the defendant and seems to provide
Microsoft with a judicially approved monopoly over the most
important distribution channel in the software industry: Windows.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE PFJ
Some obvious problems with the agreement are discernable
immediately. Below, we identify the most unsettling of those
problems. Perhaps some are not in fact problems, but merely
questions of misreading of the agreement; of course, the fact that
reasonable people can read the agreement differently is itself
indicative of the problem presented by it, given that Microsoft will
surely interpret it as a determined and unrepentant monopolist.
A. Retaliation
The Scope of the Protection is Narrow: Most significantly,
Microsoft is constrained only from the specified forms of
retaliation. If it retaliates against a PC company for any non-
specified reason, that retaliation is not prohibited. This
formulation is particularly problematic because the protected PC
company activities are narrowly and specifically defined.
Retaliation against a PC company for installing a non-Microsoft
application that does not meet the middleware definition is NOT
prohibited; nor is retaliation against a PC company for removing a
MSFT application that does not meet the middleware definition.
For example:
MSN and MSN Messenger are not middleware under the definition of
a Microsoft Middleware Product. If a PC removes the icon and start
menu promotion of MSN and/or MSN Messenger, it can be subjected to
retaliation.
Windows Movie Maker or the Windows photo editing software is not
middleware so if a PC company decides to remove either of these
products, Microsoft can retaliate.
More generally, it is odd to have a formulation that de facto
approves of Microsoft's retaliation against PC companies, except
where that retaliation is forbidden. And, it is odd that any certain
types of retaliation (i.e., retaliation by changing contractual
relations and retaliation by changing promotional arrangements) are
forbidden, as opposed to prohibiting any form of retaliation
whatsoever.
Non-Monetary Compensation Provision is Far too Narrow Microsoft
is free to retaliate against PC companies that promote withholding
any existing form of ``non-monetary Compensation''
introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration'' may not be
withheld. competition by - only ``newly Termination Clause Will
Intimidate PC companies Microsoft can terminate, without notice, a
PC companies Windows license, after sending the PC company two
notices that it believes it is violating its license. There need not
be any adjudication or determination by any independent tribunal
that Microsoft's claims are correct; only two notices to any PC
company of a putative violation, and thereafter, Microsoft may
terminate without even giving notice. This provision means that the
PC companies are, at any time, just two registered letters away from
an unannounced economic calamity. It will render the PC companies
severely limited in their willingness to promote products that
compete with Microsoft.
Pricing Schemes Will Allow Microsoft to Avoid Effect of Decree
Microsoft can price Windows at a high price, and then put economic
pressure on the PC company to use only Microsoft applications
through the provision that Microsoft can provide unlimited
consideration to PC companies for distributing or promoting
Microsoft's services or products. The limitation that these payments
must be ``commensurate with the absolute level or amount
of'' PC company expenditures is hollow--given that it is
not clear how the PC companies costs will be accounted for, for this
purpose.
B. Pricing
Microsoft Can Use Rebates to Eviscerate Competition
Under the settlement, Microsoft can provide unlimited
``market development allowances, programs, or other discounts
in connection with Windows Operating System Products.'' This
provision essentially eviscerates the entire scheme of PC company
choice, functioning the same way as the rebate provision discussed
above, but without any tether or limiting principle whatsoever.
Simply put, MSFT can charge $150 per copy of Windows, but then
provide a $99 ``market development allowance'' for PC
companies that install Windows Media Player as opposed to Real
Networks media player. Presumably, this is intend to be prescribed
by III.B.3.c, which provides that ``discounts or their
award'' shall not be ``based on or impose any criterion or
requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with ... this Final
Judgment,'' but this circular and self-referential provision
does not ensure that the practice identified above is prohibited.
[[Page 30236]]
C. PC Company Licenses
Microsoft Retains Control of Desktop Innovation Microsoft
retains control of desktop innovation, by being able to prohibit PC
companies from installing or displaying icons or other shortcuts to
non-Microsoft software/products/services, if Microsoft does not
provide the same software/product/service. For example, if Microsoft
does not include a media player shortcut inside its ``My
Music'' folder, it can forbid the PC companies from doing the
same. This turns innovation and the premise that PC companies be
permitted to differentiate their products on its head.
For example, Sony--as a PC company and a major force in the
music and photography industries--would be uniquely positioned
to differentiate the ``My Music'' and ``My
Photos'' folder. And yet, Sony's ability to do turns solely on
the extent to which Microsoft chooses to unleash competition in
these areas. Microsoft Retains Control of Desktop Promotion.''
Microsoft also, very oddly, can control the extent to which non-
Microsoft middleware is promoted on the desktop, by virtue of a
limitation that PC companies can promote such software at the
conclusion of a boot sequence or an Internet hook-up, via a user
interface that is ``of similar size and shape to the user
interface provided by the corresponding Microsoft middleware.''
Thus, Microsoft sets the parameters for competition and user
interface.
Promotional Flexibility for Internet Access Providers Only, and
Only for the PC companies ``own'' Internet Access Provider
(IAP)u) PC companies are allowed to offer IAP promotions at the end
of the boot sequence, but not promotions for other products. Also,
the phrase that defines the scope of this flexibility (a PC
companies ``own IAP offer'') is ambiguous: it is not clear
if the PC companies right is limited to offering an IAP product that
is marketed under the PC companies brand, or if this includes any
IAP that an PC company may reach an agreement with to promote in
this space. The latter would obviously give the PC companies more
flexibility.
D. API Disclosure
APIs Defined Too Narrowly
Microsoft can evade this provision by ``hard-wiring''
links to its applications, and through other predatory coding
schemes. The disclosure is limited to ``APIs and related
Documentation.'' This may be too narrow and can be evaded.
Moreover, the provision for the disclosure of ``Technical
Information'' found in Judge Jackson's interim conduct remedies
has been eliminated. These disclosures are necessary to provide
effective interoperability.
E. Server Interoperability Issues (also found in III, E, I, H and J)
Only Full Interoperability Can Reduce Microsoft's Barriers to
Desktop Competition The DOJ's proposed server remedy will fail to
provide meaningful, competitive interoperability between Microsoft
desktops and non-Microsoft servers.
The applications barrier to entry is central to this case and to
Microsoft's desktop monopoly. A remedy that provides true server
interoperability can be a powerful tool to reduce the applications
barrier to entry. The server has the same, or indeed more, potential
to provide an alternative application platform to the desktop as did
the browser or any other desktop runtime. In that sense it is
directly analogous to middleware products.
Microsoft has plainly recognized the threat that non-Microsoft
servers pose as an alternative applications platform and has acted
to exclude those products from full interoperation with the desktop
and to advantage its own server products. It is able to do that
because it controls the means by which servers may interoperate with
the functions and features of the Windows desktop. In order to
succeed in establishing non-Microsoft servers as an effective
alternative application platform, both consumers and application
developers have to be convinced that such servers can overcome the
interoperability barriers that Microsoft has erected and have become
viable alternatives to Microsoft's own servers, which of course
fully interoperate with the desktop.
The proposed decree allows Microsoft to continue to exploit
dependencies between its desktop applications or its desktop
Middleware and its servers or handheld devices to exclude server and
handheld competition. ]he New Order Requires Less Disclosure Than
the Original Order The interim conduct order imposed by Judge
Jackson (see Final Judgment Section 3(b) (iii)) required Microsoft
to disclose all APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical
Information (i.e., any and all possible technical dependencies)
between (a) software installed on any device (including servers and
handhelds) and (b) any Microsoft Operating System or Middleware
installed on a PC.
But the Proposed Final Judgment discloses less information (no
server APIs and no Technical Information) between fewer platforms
(no client OS-to-server application disclosure; no unbundled client
Middleware-to-server disclosure; no client OS-to- handheld
disclosure; and no client Middleware-to-handheld disclosure; with no
access to source code, and no provision for timely or updated
disclosures.
Consequently, unlike old 3(b)(iii), the PFJ (Section 3(E))
permits Microsoft to push functionality from the OS to the
application layer in order to avoid disclosure. ]he Failure to
Define ``Interoperate'' Is A Huge Mistake Neither section
3(E) nor any other provision of the proposal defines the meaning of
``interoperate.'' The failure to define
``interoperate'' is tantamount to the Justice Department's
prior failure to define ``integrate'' in the 1995 consent
decree, and will form the basis for unending and bitter future
disputes over the scope of Microsoft's disclosure obligation.
``Communications Protocol'' is Defined Too Narrowly
and Too Ambiguous The definition of ``Communications
Protocol,'' which determines the scope of server information to
be disclosed by Microsoft, is highly ambiguous, and potentially very
narrow in scope:
It is limited to Windows Server Operating System, and thus is
unclear whether it includes Internet Information Server (Microsoft's
Web Server) or Windows Media Server, both of which are shipped with
Windows 2000 Server.
It is unclear whether ``rules for information
exchange'' that ``govern the format, semantics, timing
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a
network'' means the rules for transmitting information packets
over a network, or the rules for formatting and interpreting
information within such packets.
It is unclear what the last sentence of the definition of
Communication Protocol means when it excludes from the information
to be disclosed ``protocols to remotely administer Windows 2000
Server and its successors.''
Even in its broadest possible meaning, Communications Protocols
is insufficiently broad or comprehensive to require disclosure of
the information needed to permit interoperability between non-
Microsoft servers and the full features and functions of Windows
desktops. For example, no conceivable interpretation of
Communications Protocol would appear to require disclosure of
Microsoft's COM+. 7he Definition of ``Windows Operating System
Product'' Gives Microsoft the Ability to Avoid Disclosure.
The scope of Microsoft's disclosure obligation is determined in
large part by the meaning of ``Windows Operating System
Product.'' The definition of Windows Operating System Product
leaves Microsoft free to determine in ``its sole
discretion'' what software code comprises a ``Windows
Operating System Product.'' In other words, Microsoft's
disclosure obligation is subject entirely to its discretion.
The Room for Dispute Means No Meaningful Disclosure is''
Likely to Occur Much Before the Judgment Expires: The ambiguities
and uncertainties in the scope and meaning of section 3(E) and the
definitions on which it depends means that a protracted battle will
inevitably be required to obtain Microsoft's full compliance with
its disclosure obligations. The 9 month delay in Microsoft's
obligation to begin disclosure means that a significant portion of
the 5 year remedial term will have expired, and that one product
generation at least will have passed, before any disclosure is made.
Combined with the fact that there is no explicit provision for
additional disclosures for upgraded or successor products, and no
requirement for timely disclosure, means that there is not likely to
be more than one disclosure for one product generation only.
Microsoft's ability to exploit ambiguity, and the discretionary
powers given to the company, the defendant here, must be eliminated.
The document simply fails the test of clarity and specificity needed
to be a meaningful contract between the United States, the state
plaintiffs, and Microsoft.
Section 3(J)'s Carve Out Eliminates The Most Important
Disclosures What little section 3(E) provides, section 3(J) takes
away by permitting Microsoft to refuse to disclose the very
protocols and technical dependencies it is currently using to
prevent non-Microsoft servers from interoperating with Microsoft
desktops and servers.
[[Page 30237]]
G. Anti-Competitive Agreements
Joint Development Agreements Can Subvert Protections of
Settlement The protection against anti-competitive agreements is
substantially undermined by the exception that allows Microsoft to
launch ``joint development or joint services
arrangements'' with PC companies and others. Under this
provision, Microsoft can ``invite'' PC companies, ISVs,
and other industry players to enter into ``joint
development'' agreements, and then resort to an array of
exclusionary practices. For example, Microsoft invites PC company X
to form a ``joint development'' project to create
``Windows for X,'' a ``new product'' to be
installed on the PC company's PCs. So long as Microsoft's activities
are cloaked under this rubric, it is exempt from the ban on
requiring the PC company to ship a fixed percentage of its units
loaded with Microsoft's applications, and other protections designed
to promote competition.
1. Desktop Customization
Add/Remove is For Icons Only, Not the Middleware Itself The add/
remove provisions in the agreement only allow for removal of end
user access to Microsoft middleware, not the middleware itself. This
position is not consistent with the language in the Court of Appeals
opinion on commingling or the ``add/remove'' issue. For
example, a PC company or a consumer might choose to eliminate
Microsoft's Internet Explorer and replace it with Netscape's
Navigator as the default. Under this provision, Microsoft's Internet
Explorer--not Netscape's Navigator--is still used in the
MyDocuments, MyMusic, MyPictures and Windows Explorer folders.
More substantially, if MSFT's middleware remains on PCs (even
with the end user access masked), then applications developers will
continue to write applications that run on that
middleware--reinforcing the applications barrier to entry that
was at the heart of this case. Allowing MSFT to forbid the PC
companies from removing MSFT middleware, and allowing MSFT to
configure Windows to make it impossible for end users to do the
same, allows Microsoft to reinforce the applications barrier to
entry, irremediably.
As we have seen with the implementation of this approach (i.e.,
icon removal only) with regard to Internet Explorer in Windows XP,
MSFT can use the presentation of this option in the utility to make
it less desirable to end users. Moreover, limiting the required
``add/remove'' provision to icons only is actually a step
backward from the current state of affairs in Windows XP, where code
is removable for several pieces of Microsoft middleware. Thus, the
DoJ actually codifies the most limiting of consumer
alternatives--merely removing an icon. Why Are Non-MSFT Icons
Subject to Add/Remove ?
The agreement gives Microsoft an added benefit: it can demand
that PC companies include icons for non-MSFT middleware in the add/
remove utility. Why this should be required, in the absence of any
finding that assuring the permanence of non-MSFT middleware on the
desktop is anti-competitive, is bizarre. This essentially treats the
victims of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior as if they were
equally guilty of wrongdoing.
Twelve Months To Implement is Too Long
Most of the provisions in this section do not take effect for a
full 12-month period--20 percent of the total length of the
PFJ. Given Microsoft's vast engineering resources; an ability to
instantly update its products via on-line downloads; and the just-
in-time manufacturing of the PC companies, there is no justification
for this lengthy phase-in. Tellingly, when Microsoft made modest
concessions in response to the Court of Appeals decision on July
11th, it implemented these changes within three weeks (when a new
beta version of Win XP was released). Consumers should not have to
wait another year for the choices they deserved to be offered years
and years ago.
Microsoft Can Embed Middleware, And Evade Restrictions
End users and PC companies are allowed to substitute the launch
of a non-Microsoft Middleware product for the launch of Microsoft
middleware only where that Microsoft middleware would be launched in
a separate Top-Level Window and display a complete end user
interface or a trademark. This, in essence, allows Microsoft to
determine which middleware components will or will not be subject to
effective competition. By embedding their middleware components in
other middleware (and thereby not displaying it in a ``Top
Level Window'' with all user interface elements), or by not
branding the middleware with a trademark, Microsoft can essentially
stop rivals from launching their products in lieu of the Microsoft
products.
Harder for Consumers to Choose Non-Microsoft Products than
Microsoft Products In the same provision (III.H.2.), Microsoft may
require an end user to confirm his/her choice of a non-Microsoft
product, but there is no similar ``double consent''
requirement for Microsoft Middleware. There is no reason why it
should be harder for users to select non-Microsoft products than
Microsoft products.
Microsoft Can ``Sweep'' the Desktop, Eliminate Rival
]cons
Additionally, the PC company flexibility provisions are
substantially undermined by a provision that allows Microsoft to
exploit its ``desktop sweeper'' to eliminate PC company
installed icons by asking an end user if he/she wants the PC
company-installed configuration wiped out after 14 days. Thus, the
PC company flexibility provisions will only last on the desktop with
certainty for 14 days, and after that period, persistent automated
queries from Microsoft can reverse the effect of the PC company's
installations. The effect of this provision is to severely devalue
the ability of PC companies to offer premier desktop space to
ISVs--and to undermine the ability of PC companies to
differentiate their products and provide consumers with real
choices. Here is an example of what a prompt might look like (which
would have the effect of setting all of the choices and defaults
previously picked by PC companies and consumers back to Microsoft's
presets):
Two weeks have passed since you bought your PC! Click on the
Icon if you want to enhance your PC with better more robust
multimedia capabilities from Microsoft.
Desktop ``MFN'' Requirements
Finally, nothing in the decree forbids Microsoft from
requiring--especially where non- middleware is
concerned--so-called MFN agreements from the PC companies.
These agreements tax PC company efforts to promote Microsoft rivals
by requiring that equal promotion or placement be given to Microsoft
products, often without compensation.
I. Licensing Provisions
Licenses Put in Hands of Those Who May Not Be Able to Use Them
The PC company licensing provision is limited in its effectiveness
because the PC companies are prevented from ``assigning,
transferring, or sublicensing'' their rights. This may severely
limit their ability to partner with software companies to develop
innovative software packages to be pre-installed on PCs. This
provision is especially harmful when contrasted with the broad
partnering opportunities afforded to Microsoft under III.G. In
addition, the PC company's willingness to use these
provisions--even if they have the financial and technical
wherewithal to do so--may be limited by the weakness of the
retaliation provisions discussed above.
Reciprocal License? This simply can't be true.
The agreement requires ISVs, PC companies and other licensees to
license back to Microsoft any intellectual property the{time} ,
develop in the course of exercising their rights under the
settlement. But that simply rewards Microsoft for having created the
circumstances (i.e., having acted illegally) that necessitated the
settlement in the first place. Microsoft should not be able to
obtain the intellectual property rights of others simply because
those law abiding entities have been required to work with this law
breaker.
In addition, this provision may inadvertently work as a
``poison pill'' to discourage ISVs, et al., from taking
advantage of the licensing rights ostensibly provided them in III.I.
The risk that an ISV would have to license its rights to Microsoft
will be a substantial deterrent for that ISV from exercising its
rights under III.I.
J. ``Security and Anti-Piracy'' Exception to API Disclosure
The Settlement Exempts The Software and Services That Are the
Future of Computing One of the most seemingly innocuous provisions
in the agreement--that is in fact, one of the biggest
loopholes--is the provision that allows MSFT to withhold from
API, documentation or communication protocol disclosure any
information that would ``compromise the security of ....
digital rights management, encryption or authentication
systems.'' The fact is that for programs to interoperate you
must have all the information necessary. A provision that allows
Microsoft to withhold certain information--or guarantees
litigation over what information is exempted ensures that no program
will ever be truly interoperable.
[[Page 30238]]
This provision raises several critical concerns: Digital Rights
Management Exception ``Swallows'' Media Player Rule Since
the most prevalent use of media players in the years ahead will be
in playing content that is protected by digital rights management
(DRM) (i.e., copyrighted content licensed to users on a ``pay-
for-play'' basis), allowing MSFT to render its DRM solution
non-interoperable with other DRM solutions essentially means that
non-Microsoft media players will be virtually useless when loaded on
Windows computers.
Authentication Exception Allows Microsoft to Control Internet
Gateways, Server-Based Services.
Most experts agree that the future of computing lies with
server-based applications that consumers will access from a variety
of devices. Indeed, Microsoft's ``.Net'' and ``.Net
My Services'' (formerly known as Hailstorm) are evidence that
Microsoft certainly holds this belief. These services, when linked
with MSFT's ``Passport,'' are Microsoft's self- declared
effort to migrate its franchise from the desktop to the Internet:
By exempting authentication APIs and protocols from the
settlement's disclosure requirement, the settlement exempts the most
important applications and services that will drive the computer
industry over the next few years. If Microsoft can wall off
Passport, .Net, and .Net My Services (Hailstorm) with
impunity--and link these internet/server-based applications and
services to their desktop monopoly--then Microsoft will be in a
commanding position to dominate the future of computing.
PFJ SECTION IV. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Enforcement Authority
Enforcement Authority is Too Difficult to Employ Clearly, what's
missing from the agreement is a quick, meaningful, and empowered
mechanism for preventing and rectifying Microsoft's future
violations of the agreement. Thus, while the provision allowing
Microsoft to cure any violations of III C, D, E, and H before an
enforcement action may be brought is not itself objectionable, it is
but one of a number of provisions that make enforcing the agreement
cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming.
B. Technical Committee
Microsoft gets half the votes.
In setting up the Technical Committee, Microsoft gets to appoint
one member, the Department of Justice gets to appoint one member,
and Microsoft and the Department jointly appoint the third. This
formulation guarantees that at least Microsoft, the defendant, will
approve half of the Technical Committee's members. Technical
Committee's Investigation Allowed Only Limited Use The work of the
Technical Committee cannot ``be admitted in any enforcement
proceeding before the Court for any purpose,'' and the members
of the TC are forbidden to appear. Thus, under the terms of the
decree, the substantial time, effort, and expense that can go into a
TC process may need to be duplicated in an enforcement
action--adding to the complexity and expense that process will
pose for victims of Microsoft violations.
C. Voluntary Dispute Resolution
Source Code Access is Not Enough.
While it is helpful that the Technical Committee will have
access to MSFT's source code, and can resolve disputes involving
that issue, the Technical Committee is otherwise powerless to compel
Microsoft's compliance with the agreement in any other respect. The
prospects that Microsoft will accept the decisions of the TC in a
voluntary dispute resolution process are near zero. And the entire
mechanism seems designed to drag disputes on indefinitely: no time
limits or time lines are specified for dispute resolution.
Thus, as noted above, there must be some compulsory means of
dispute resolution, short of renewed litigation in the District
Court. As it stands now, a party injured by MSFT's violation of the
decree can:
� Complain to the Technical Committee, which will
then conduct an investigation;
� Once the investigation is complete, the TC will
presumably issue some decision; while the investigation is ongoing,
the TC is supposed to consult with MSFT's Compliance Officer, for an
indefinite period;
� If the TC concludes that MSFT violated the
agreement, and MSFT does not agree to change its behavior or rectify
the wrong, then the TC must decide whether to recommend the matter
to US DOJ for further action;
� Once recommended, the U.S. DOJ--after some
review period--y decide to take action, and apply to the court
for a remedy, or it may not;
� And once the US DOJ applies for action, the process
in court to obtain relief or remedy may extend for an indefinite
period.
This is obviously a lengthy and ineffective process for insuring
that MSFT complies with its obligations under the decree. In an
industry where time is of the essence, and where delays can be
fatal, the delays built in that allow Microsoft to drag its feet are
wholly unacceptable.
PFJ SECTION V. TERMINATION
A. Five Year Limit
Five Year Coverage Is Inadequate
Given the scope of Microsoft's violation, the time period
required to restore effective competition, and the pattern of
willful lawbreaking on Microsoft's part, a five-year consent decree
is woefully inadequate.
B. Two Year Extension
Penalty For Knowing Violations is Too Lenient
Amazingly, the agreement provides that no matter how many
knowing and willful violations that Microsoft engages in, the
restrictions found in the settlement may be extended for a single
two-year period only. Thus, if Microsoft is adjudged to have engaged
in such a pattern of violations, it essentially has a ``free
reign'' to repeat those violations with impunity. Moreover,
even for a single adjudged instance of knowing and intentional
violation, a mere two-year extension is inadequate.
PFJ SECTION VI. DEFINITIONS
A. APIs
API Definition Too Narrow
This is discussed above.
B. Communications Protocol
Missing Definition, Inclusion of ``Technical
Information:''
While the definition of communication protocol is adequate, the
decree is missing a definition of ``technical
information,'' and inclusion of that material in the mandatory
disclosures. This definition and protection were provided in the
interim remedies entered by the District Court.
K. Microsoft Middleware Product
Definition Exempts Too Much Middleware
Much of the decree is based on this definition--the PC
Company's flexibility turns on what is included or excluded from
this category of application. And yet the definition is fatally
flawed.
� First, among existing products, only the five
listed items are ``middleware.'' That means that highly
similar items, such as MSN, MSN Messenger, MSN Explorer, MSFT
RunTime (the replacement for the MSFT JVM), Passport, Outlook, and
Office are ALL excluded from the definition of middleware. Why
Windows Messenger should be covered, but MSN Messenger should be
exempt; or why Internet Explorer should be covered, but MSN Explorer
should be exempt, is a mystery.
� Any efforts by PC companies to remove these
Microsoft applications may be met with retaliation; end users cannot
remove these applications (or even their icons). This is a step
backward from the status quo (even in Windows XP); it is a gaping
hole.
� Second, the generic middleware definition, which
applies only to new products, and therefore does not capture any
product now in existence, allows MSFT to define which products are
included or not, by virtue of MSFT's trademark and branding choices.
Thus, so long as MSFT buries these products inside other
applications, they are not independently middleware.
� Third, as suggested in the points above, the
definition misses the future platform challenges to Microsoft's
Windows monopoly: web-based services. These services should be
specifically defined, and included in the class of protected
middleware.
N. Non-Microsoft Middleware Product
Only Developers With REALLY Big Garages Need Apply
The competitive offerings protected by the decree are narrowly
limited to offerings that fall within the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products.'' Again, as noted above, the
guarantees of PC company flexibility, promotion, and end use choice
apply only to these specified products, not to an,,, other software
applications.
And yet, sadly, this definition narrowly extends this protection
only to applications ``of which at least one million copies
were distributed in the United States within the previous
year.'' Thus, an innovator in his garage, creating a new form
of middleware, to revolutionize the computer industry, has
[[Page 30239]]
no protection from MSFT's rapacious ways until he can achieve the
distribution of 1 million copies of his software. So much for the
Silicon Valley myth ....
Also, as noted above, ``web based services'' are not
captured in this definition, notwithstanding their importance to
future competition to the Windows OS.
R. Timely Manner
Netscape, All Over Again
Microsoft's obligation to disclose APIs and other materials
needed to make applications interoperable with Windows in a
``timely manner'' is keyed off the definition of that term
in Section R. But, Microsoft retains complete control over this
timeline because the definition provides that Microsoft is under no
obligation to engage in these disclosures until it distributes a
version of the Windows OS to 150,000 beta testers. Thus, so long as
MSFT restricts its beta testing program to 149,999 individuals until
very late in the development process, it can effectively eviscerate
the disclosure requirements. More troubling, it appears that
Microsoft must have mislead the Department of Justice.
Our review of the available documentation shows, for example,
that Microsoft had no more than 20,000 beta testers4 for Windows XP
(at least until very late in the release cycle); thus, had this
provision been in place during the Windows XP release cycle,
Microsoft would have been under no obligation to release APIs until
just on the eve of product shipping.
Note that the number of ``beta testers'' will be much
smaller titan the number of ``beta copies'' of a product
that is being prepared for release.
Slow disclosure of APIs is precisely how MSFT defeated
Netscape's timely interoperability with Windows 95. Thus, in this
way, not only is the decree inadequate to prevent future wrongdoing,
it does not even redress proven illegal acts in the past. U. Windows
Operating System Product--The rule which gives away the rest of
the settlement.
The entire settlement can really be defined by its final clause,
definition U. of the Windows Operating System Product. This
provision gives Microsoft the right to define the Windows Operating
System Product in the flowing way: ``The software code that
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' This definition eviscerates
most of the prior provisions of the PFJ (or at a minimum guarantees
continued litigation of the meaning of the PFJ) will be rendered
meaningless.
More important, it gratuitously gives Microsoft a free reign to
trample through the antitrust laws by continually redefining its
monopoly product as it sees fit. It is hard to imaging how DoJ
agreed to this provision.
Appendix One: Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for
Windows. Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for Windows
Changes Will Not Affect Oct. 25 Launch Date of Windows XP REDMOND,
Wash.--July 11, 2001--Microsoft Corp. announced Wednesday
that it is offering computer manufacturers greater flexibility in
configuring desktop versions of the Microsoft?? Windows?? operating
system in light of the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. The company said the changes would not
affect the Oct. 25 launch date of Windows XP.
``We recognize that some provisions in our existing Windows
licenses have been ruled improper by the court, so we are providing
computer manufacturers with greater flexibility and we are doing
this immediately so that computer manufacturers can take advantage
of them in planning for the upcoming release of Windows XP,''
said Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. ``Windows XP represents a
revolutionary step forward in personal computing, and computer
manufacturers and consumers are looking forward to this product with
great anticipation.''
``This announcement does not take the place of settlement
discussions with the government parties or any future steps in the
legal process; however, we wanted to take immediate steps in light
of the court's ruling. We are hopeful that we can work with the
government parties on the issues that remain after the court's
ruling,'' Bailmet added.
The appeals court ruled that certain provisions in Microsoft's
licenses with PC manufacturers impaired the distribution of third-
party Web browsers. Microsoft will now provide PC manufacturers with
the following new flexibility:
� PC manufacturers will have the option to remove the
Start menu entries and icons that provide end users with access to
the Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft
will include Internet Explorer in the Add/Remove programs feature in
Windows XP.
� PC manufacturers will have the option to remove the
Start menu entries and icons that provide end users with access to
Internet Explorer from previous versions of Windows, including
Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows He.
� PC manufacturers will retain the option of putting
icons directly onto the Windows desktop. Based on extensive customer
usability studies, Microsoft had designed Windows XP to ship with a
clean desktop and improved Start menu, but PC manufacturers will now
have the option of continuing to place icons on the Windows desktop
if they want to.
� Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove
Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the
Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft has
always made it easy for consumers to delete the icons for Internet
Explorer, but will now offer consumers this additional option in
Windows XP.
Although some of these changes will require development work and
testing for Windows XP, Microsoft said Wednesday it can complete the
work and will be able to meet the date for worldwide launch on Oct.
25.
Computer industry leaders today underscored the importance of
the launch of Windows XP to the PC industry and consumers.
``We're very excited about the possibilities that Windows XP
delivers to our customers,'' said Ted Waitt, co- founder and
CEO of Gateway. ``With this new flexibility, we're looking
forward to taking Windows XP to the next level, tailoring technology
to meet our customers'' needs.''
``Windows XP is an incredible step forward for end users
and partners, unlocking the possibilities of the digital
world,'' said Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms
at Microsoft. ``Windows XP provides new opportunities for
companies throughout the hardware and software industries,
especially PC manufacturers that have worked closely with us to
create the best experience for customers.'' ``We're
excited about Windows XP and the positive impact it will have on our
industry. As a strong partner for more than 15 years, Compaq has
worked closely with Microsoft throughout the extensive development
of Windows XP,'' said like Larson, senior vice president and
general manager of the Access Business Group at Compaq. ``We
are setting a new standard for simple, dependable and efficient
computing.''
``Dell is excited about delivering Windows XP later this
year,'' said Jim Totton, vice president of software for the
Consumer Products Group at Dell. ``Dell is always interested in
what's best for its customers, and the new levels of performance,
ease of use and customization will combine for a great personal
computing experience.''
Windows XP will offer customers exciting new experiences for
both home and work. Whether someone is an aspiring photographer or a
businessperson on the road, Windows XP enables them to embrace the
new digital world. It brings together the power and reliability that
businesses have asked for with the ease of use and flexibility that
home consumers want.
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq ``MSFT'') is the
worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for
personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of
products and services designed to empower people through great
software--any time, any place and on any device. Microsoft and
Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft
Corp. in the United States end/or other countries.
The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may
be the trademarks of their respective owners. Note to editors: If
you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft,
please visit the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/
presspass/on Microsoft's corporate information pages.
CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE NEW
For Immediate Release
Contact: Sean Rushton or Philippa Jeffery
December 11, 2001 (202) 467-5300
State AGs' Proposed Microsoft Case Remedies Are ``Wishful
Thinking''
Only eight presents for Hanukkah, and there is no Santa Claus.
Washington, DC--Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
today described the nine remaining state attorneys general in the
Microsoft antitrust case as engaged in wishful thinking in their new
proposed remedy package. The nine renegade states, California,
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Minnesota,
[[Page 30240]]
Utah, and West Virginia are continuing the litigation against the
software company despite a settlement reached by nine other states
and the U.S. Department of Justice.
``Who are these public officials kidding?'' CAGW
President Tom Schatz said. ``While the holidays are here, there
is no one--besides these AGs--generous enough to give such
a gift to Microsoft's competitors. The proposal is pure fantasy,
going far beyond the district court remedy, which was substantially
narrowed by a higher court.''
``Taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for the time and
effort in this case, having already forked over more than $35
million at the state and local level. The remaining nine states and
the District of Columbia have an average of S 1.3 million in budget
deficits. California alone is in the red by $9.5 billion, West
Virginia is at $3 million, and Minnesota has ordered 10 percent
budget cuts. Citizens are justifiably angered in these troubled
times by the continued misuse of their tax dollars on this
litigation,'' Schatz said.
``The details of the proposed remedy read like a
competitor's dream come true. The nearly two-dozen provisions are
three times as generous as the eight nights of Hanukkah,''
Schatz said. The states propose a 10-year remedy, twice as long as
the one agreed to by the nine other states, DOJ, and Microsoft.
During that time, every version of Windows would have to include
Java, which is manufactured by Sun Microsystems. Microsoft's
intellectual property would be available--essentially for
free--to any competitor. A Special Master would have
extraordinary powers to decide whether Microsoft is violating the
agreement, and anyone can complain anonymously.
``Pursuit of this matter is particularly wasteful since the
same judge that would approve the settlement between DOJ and
Microsoft is presiding over the state litigation. If the AGs are
really in the holiday spirit, they will stop misusing tax dollars on
the Microsoft case and instead spend more time and effort protecting
their citizens from terrorism,'' Schatz concluded.
CAGW is the nation's largest taxpayer advocacy group with over
one million members and supporters nationwide. It is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud,
mismanagement and abuse in government.
1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202)
467-5300
www.cagw.org
PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE
HERBERT KOHL, WISCONSIN
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, WISCONSiN
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NEW YORK
RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS
MARIA CANTWELL. WASHINGTON
JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH
STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
JON KYL, ARIZONA
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA
SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY
COMMlTTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-62?5
November 29, 2001
The Honorable Charles A. James
Assistant Attorney General
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: United States v. Microsoft Co/p, Civil Action No.
98-1232 (CKK)
Dear Assistant Attorney General James:
As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee has a long-standing
interest in the policy implications of the government's antitrust
case in United States v. Microsoft. During my tenure as chairman,
the Committee held a series of investigative hearings examining
allegations of antitrust violations by Microsoft and the ability of
existing law to address anti-competitive commercial conduct
effectively and in a timely fashion. Many of the Committee's
findings were later manifested in the decisions by the District
Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The resolution of this case has significance not only for the
parties to the litigation, but also for the future application and
enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws in the software industry.
Given the Committee's continued interest in these policy questions,
it would be extremely helpful for me and other members of the
Committee to have a better understanding of the various legal,
regulatory and practical considerations relating to the proposed
settlement.
I have reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment (``PFJ'')
submitted by the Department of Justice and several of the state
plaintiffs, as well as the Competitive Impact Statement
(``CIS'') filed by the Department on November 15, 2001. At
the outset, I should note that the CIS provides information that
further explains the implications of the proposed settlement and
appears to satisfy your statutory obligation. Even so, I have a
number of specific questions that I believe are critical to
analyzing and understanding the PFJ. These questions are not
intended to suggest a predisposition either in support of or in
opposition to the settlement, and any interpretation otherwise would
signal a misunderstanding of my interest in this matter. Rather, the
questions are intended to elicit important information that I
believe is necessary for forming an independent, objective, and
informed analysis of the PFJ. Such objective analysis is essential
in view of the importance of this case to Microsoft and its
competitors, to innovation in the high-technology industry, to the
economy, and to consumers.
1. An earlier decision by the Court of Appeals, United States v.
Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (DCCir. 1998) (``Microsoft
II''), relating to the interpretation of an earlier consent
decree with Microsoft, has been interpreted by some as expressing
the view that judges should not be involved in software design, and
that the government simply has no business telling Microsoft or any
other company what it can include in any of its products. In its
most recent decision, however, the Court of Appeals said that to the
extent that the decision in Microsoft II completely disclaimed
judicial capacity to evaluate high-tech product design, it cannot be
said to conform to prevailing antitrust doctrine.
See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001)
(``Microsoft III''). Is the law clear that the Department
does have a responsibility to assess the competitive implications of
software design, in bringing antitrust enforcement actions? And, if
so, does the Department have the necessary technical expertise and
resources to perform such an evaluation?
2. To foster competition in ``middleware'' the PFJ
requires disclosure of APIs and similar information, but it then
limits this provision only to those instances where disclosure would
be for ``the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
Operating System Product.'' Except for the limitation, this
provision is almost exactly like a comparable provision in Judge
Jackson's interim consent decree. Why did the Department decide to
add this limitation to the PFJ, and what effect will the inclusion
of the limitation have on restoring competition? Please explain the
competitive significance of web-based services, and whether the PFJ
guarantees interoperability with the servers that operate those web-
based services?
3. The Department has concluded that the PFJ is in the
``public interest,'' as required by the Tunney Act. Are
you aware of any other case where a Tunney Act ``public
interest'' determination has occurred with respect to a
settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already has
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals? To what extent should the
scope of the District Court's deference to the Antitrust Division
under the Tunney Act be affected by a Court of Appeals' prior
affirmance of Sherman Act liability?
4. The Court of Appeals remanded the remedy issue because, among
other reasons, the District Court failed to demonstrate how
divestiture relief was designed to `` `unfetter
[the] 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.' '' Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), United
States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)). Please
describe how the PFJ meets this standard dictated by the appellate
court. (a) How does the PFJ ``terminate the monopoly''
Microsoft was found by the Appellate Court to have unlawfully
maintained over PC operating system software? (b) How does the PFJ
``deny to Microsoft the fruits of its Section 2
violation?'' and (c) How does the PFJ ``ensure that there
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the
future?''
5. Are there findings by the appellate court against Microsoft
that are not addressed by the PFJ? If so, what were the reasons why
the Department chose not to address these findings?
6. The Court of Appeals held that it was illegal for Microsoft
to bind products together
[[Page 30241]]
with Windows by ``commingling code'' because this practice
helped Microsoft unlawfully maintain its desktop operating system
monopoly. The Court concluded that code commingling has an
``anticompetitive effect'' by deterring OEMs from pre-
installing rival software, ``thereby reducing the rivals' usage
share and, hence, developers' interest in rivals' APIs as an
alternative to the API set exposed by Microsoft's operating
system.'' Microsoft III, 153 F.3d at 66. How does the PFJ
prevent Microsoft from future unlawful commingling of non-Windows
code with Windows?
7. You have said that Microsoft ``won the right to sell
integrated products,'' and that ``the tying claim was
eliminated by the appeals court.'' (Business Week, November 19,
2001, p. 116). Other observers, however, argue that the Court of
Appeals simply vacated the per se findings of a tying law violation
and remanded that issue for consideration under a ``rule of
reason'' standard? Why did the Department conclude that the
tying claim was ``eliminated'' and not simply remanded to
be retried under a different standard? What are the circumstances,
if any, under which the court or the Department could find it
impermissible for Microsoft to ``integrate'' a product
with its Windows operating system?
8. The CIS acknowledges that the ``users rarely switched
from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their
disposal.'' It has been suggested that the most effective way
to restore competition and to prevent future misconduct would be to
require Microsoft to sell a product that is simply an operating
system without all of the various applications that are now
incorporated into Windows. Without such a requirement, the argument
goes, consumers would be forced to procure two products if they
choose to use a non-Microsoft version of a product that has been
included in the operating system--Microsoft's version and the
competitor's version. If Microsoft middleware is preinstalled with
Windows, how do you think the adoption rate by users of non-
Microsoft middleware will be affected? Did the Department consider
including in the PFJ a requirement that Microsoft sell a version of
Windows that is solely an operating system without other
applications bundled with it?
9. Some observers claim the Court of Appeals found that
Microsoft's technological tying, particularly its ``commingling
of code,'' was an illegal act of monopolization under Section 2
of the Sherman Act, but that there was insufficient evidence to
determine that the same conduct violated Section 1. Do you agree
with this? Does the PFJ provide a remedy for such misconduct? In
your analysis, does the failure to find that the conduct violated
Section 1 obviate the need to provide a remedy for the violation the
court found under Section 2?
10. Some Wall Street analysts have opined that the PFJ imposes
no obligation on Microsoft to change its business practices or
redesign its products. Instead, these analysts have concluded, the
PFJ seeks to restore competition by permitting OEMs to add products
to Microsoft's desktop. Is this view of the PFJ accurate? Is it the
Department's position that OEMs are in the best economic position to
restore competition in personal computing? If so, what is the basis
for that position? Are there other entities that might be in a
position to help restore competition?
11. A significant portion of the Microsoft III opinion was
devoted to Microsoft's conduct vis-a-vis Java technology. The Court
found Microsoft unlawfully used distribution agreements to forestall
competition with middleware manufacturers. See, e.g., Microsoft III,
253 F.3d at 74-78. The court found these agreements to be
anticompetitive because they ``foreclosed a substantial portion
of the field for.., distribution and because, in so doing, they
protected Microsoft's monopoly from a middleware threat.'' Id.
at 76. Does the PFJ addresses such practices?
12. The Supreme Court has said that in an antitrust remedy,
``it is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to that
[unlawful] end be left open and that only the worn one be
closed.'' International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S.
392, 401 (1947). The Court also has made clear that injunctive
relief which simply ``forbid[s] a repetition of the illegal
conduct'' is not sufficient under Section 2, because defendants
``could retain the full dividends of their monopolistic
practices and profit from the unlawful restraints of trade which
they had inflicted on competitors.'' Schine Chain Theatres,
Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948). Are the standards
enunciated by the Court in International Salt and Schine Chain
Theatres applicable in the Microsoft case? If so, would you identify
provisions in the PFJ that satisfy these standards?
13. The Supreme Court also has held that a Section 2
monopolization remedy ``must break up or render impotent the
monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act.'' United
States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966). Does the PFJ
``render impotent'' Microsoft's Windows monopoly and, if
so, how?
14. There has been considerable discussion about Microsoft's
Windows XP product, with some critics arguing that Microsoft is
repeating the same technical binding, bundling and monopoly
maintenance tactics found by the court to be unlawful when used in
the past against Microsoft's competitors. If true, this allegation
would be significant, given the appellate court's instruction
``that there remain no practices likely to result in
monopolization in the future,'' Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103
(quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250
(1968)). Some critics have also charged that Microsoft's broad .NET
strategy is an effort to build upon the fruits of Microsoft's past
unlawful conduct and remake the Internet as a Microsoft-proprietary
Internet. Does the PFJ apply to Windows XP or to Microsoft's .NET
strategy? If not, why has the Department decided not to apply the
settlement to these products? Can competition in the operating
system be restored without addressing these products?
15. Many of the provisions of the PFJ appear to assume that OEMs
will act to aggregate operating system software and assume the role
of desktop design and software packaging in the PC distribution
chain. According to many observers, however, there simply is no
financial incentive for OEMs to do anything but accept the full
Microsoft software package. What is the Department's position on
this issue? Was any consideration given to reports that OEMs did not
take advantage of an offer by Microsoft this past summer to replace
icons in the Windows XP desktop?
16. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft's conduct with
respect to Java, in which the Court found it to engage in a
``campaign to deceive [Java] developers'' and
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to defeat
competition to its operating system monopoly violated Section 2 of
the Sherman Act. The Court held ``Microsoft's conduct related
to its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the
operating system in a manner not attributable either to the
superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its makers,
and therefore was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers
no procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive
developers. Accordingly, we conclude this conduct is exclusionary,
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.'' Microsoft III,
slip op. p. 101. As you know, the lower court decree included a
provision designed to prevent deliberate sabotaging of competing
products by Microsoft. Does the PFJ restrict Microsoft's ability to
modify, alter, or refuse to support computer industry standards,
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of
competitor platform, middleware or applications software?
17. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act by entering into an exclusive contract with Apple
that required Apple to install Internet Explorer as the Macintosh
browser. Microsoft III, 252 F3d at 72-74. Many observers
accuse Microsoft of having forced Apple to enter into the contract
by threatening to withhold the porting of Microsoft Office to the
Macintosh operating system. Does the PFJ prohibit Microsoft from
threatening to withhold development of Microsoft Office with respect
to other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes, and
phones? If no, why did the Department choose not to address this
concern in the PFJ?
18. You have been quoted as saying that various software and
computer services companies are in the process of purchasing space
on the desktop from Microsoft. (Business Week, November 19, 2001, p.
116). In the Department's view, is the space on the desktop on
computers manufactured by the OEMs owned by Microsoft or should that
space be the property of the computer manufacturers?
19. The CIS suggests the Department has embraced the goal of
encouraging competitive development of``middleware'' in
order that such middleware can become the type of platform software
that could challenge the operating system monopoly. The settlement
requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to remove consumer
``access'' to the company's ``middleware.'' It
has been observed, however, that since the code for Microsoft's
``middleware'' is commingled with Windows, OEMs are only
allowed to
[[Page 30242]]
remove the icon for a middleware application. The CIS seems to
acknowledge that Microsoft understood that software developers would
only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in numbers large enough
to threaten the applications barrier to entry if they believe that
Navigator would emerge as the standard software employed to browse
the web. Can you explain why you believe third-party application
developers would write applications to non-Microsoft APIs if the
Microsoft middleware APIs as well as the Windows APIs will be
present on over 95% of the personal computers sold?
20. Concerns have been raised about the consequences of several
``provisos'' that have been included in the PFJ. For
example, Section III.H.3 prohibits Microsoft from denying consumers
the choice of using competing applications, but a proviso to this
language states that Microsoft can challenge a consumer's decision
to choose an application other than its own after 14 days and
encourage the consumer to switch back to the Microsoft product. What
does the Department believe will be the impact of the messages that
Microsoft will be able to send to consumers on their own computers?
Are other companies permitted to send comparable messages to
consumers who choose to utilize Microsoft products? Finally, why did
the Department choose a period of 14 days as opposed to some other
period of time?
21. Under Sections III.H and VI.N a competing middleware
application receives protection under the PFJ, but this protection
applies only if the competitor ships at least one million units over
the course of a year. Why did the Department choose that particular
number?
22. Did the Department give consideration to the argument that
small innovators, who may be in the initial stages of product
development and sales, might be in need of greater protection than a
company capable of selling more than one million units?
23. Section 111.B of the PFJ prohibits Microsoft from engaging
in discriminatory pricing of its desktop operating system with OEMs.
Does the PFJ also prohibit use of this same kind of discriminatory
pricing against server operating systems and other non-Windows
software?
24. The interim decree proposed by Judge Jackson included a
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware software.
Does the PFJ contain a comparable provision? If not, what was the
Department's rationale for not including this prohibition in the
proposed settlement?
25. Why did the Department choose not to present evidence to the
District Court on current PC operating system market developments,
including changes in the Internet browser market share since the
trial began? Did the Department undertake an investigation of
current market developments to determine the impact of the PFJ on
the existing market realities? For example, was there an analysis of
the impact of the proposed settlement on Microsoft's proposed future
products and services?
26. The CIS suggests that the District Court's role under the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act is limited to reviewing the
remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has
alleged in its complaint. See CIS at p. 67. Yet the authorities
cited for that proposition appear to be cases that were settled
before trial. Some observers argue that in this case the District
Court should review the settlement in relationship to the Court of
Appeals ruling rather than to the violations alleged in the original
complaint. Does the Department agree with that assessment?
27. Has the Department undertaken any studies to determine the
effectiveness of its prior consent decree with Microsoft in
restoring competition? How do you believe prior obstacles to
enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft are addressed in the
PFJ?
28. Do you believe that current antitrust law is sufficient to
guarantee not only competition but timely enforcement in areas such
as the software industry?
29. What steps, if any, should be taken, legislatively or
otherwise, to ensure that the Department has the proper economic and
technological resources to enforce the law in the software industry?
I appreciate your cooperation with this request. As I hope you
agree, a better understanding of the Department's objectives and the
scope of the remedy measures included in--as well as excluded
from--the PFJ will serve the long-term interest we share in
proper application of the antitrust laws to the emerging information
economy.
I look forward to your response and to the opportunity to
address these issues with you, Microsoft and other interested
parties in the coming weeks.
Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Republican Member
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, DC 20530
December 11, 2001
Honorable Orrin Hatch
United State Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Hatch:
This is in response to our letter of November 29, requesting
responses to questions regarding U.S.v. Microsoft.
As you know, the Department has stipulated to entry of a
proposed Final Judgment resolving all remaining claims in the case,
and that settlement is undergoing Tunney Act review before the
District Court. The Department believes the proposed Final Judgment
is in the public interest and will be entered by the Court at the
conclusion of the Tunney Act process.
Nevertheless, the Department must be mindful of the Court's
prerogatives and the possibility, however remote, of future
litigation regarding the merits of the case or the settlement
itself. Accordingly, given the pendency of the case, the Department
is constrained in the amount of detail it can offer in these
responses. It would be inappropriate, for example, for the
Department to specie, legal positions it must take with regard to
potentially contested issues or to speculate about future
enforcement positions the Department might take with regard to
current or future conduct by specific firms. As a Senator who has
been a strong supporter of effective antitrust enforcement, I am
sure that you appreciate the reasons for such constraint.
At the outset, and prior to responding to your specific
questions, please allow me to offer two general perspectives that
provide context for the Department's responses.
First, U.S.v. Microsoft is and always has been a law enforcement
initiative. It involves specific allegations investigated by the
Department and litigated in the courts. The boundaries of the case
are determined by the allegations of the Department's complaint and
the manner in which those allegations have been resolved by the
courts--in particular, the Court of Appeals. Within the context
of this specific case, the Department has no legal mandate to act
outside of these boundaries.
Second, there is a wide gulf between permissible relief under
the antitrust laws and the manner in which Microsoft's competitors
would prefer to see Microsoft constrained in future competition. As
I know you appreciate, our goal as antitrust enforcers is to ensure
that Microsoft competes fairly within the confines of the antitrust
laws for the benefit of consumers, not to obtain specific
competitive advantages for the benefit of Microsoft's competitors.
With these perspectives in mind, and subject to the foregoing
caveats, the Department is pleased to provide the following
responses.
QUESTION
1. An earlier decision by the Court of Appeals, United States v.
Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (DCCir. 1998) (``Microsoft
II''), relating to the interpretation of an earlier consent
decree with Microsoft, has been interpreted by some as expressing
the view that judges should not be involved in software design, and
that the government simply has no business telling Microsoft or any
other company what it can include in any of its products. In its
most recent decision, however, the Court of Appeals said that to the
extent that the decision in Microsoft//completely disclaimed
judicial capacity to evaluate high-tech product design, it cannot be
said to conform to prevailing antitrust doctrine. See United States
v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001) (``Microsoft
III''). Is the law clear that the Department does have a
responsibility to assess the competitive implications of software
design, in bringing antitrust enforcement actions? And, if so, does
the Department have the necessary technical expertise and resources
to perform such an evaluation?
ANSWER
In exercising its responsibility to enforce the antitrust laws,
the Department routinely confronts complex issues, including
economic and technical issues regarding software design. The
Department has both the resources and capability to address such
issues, as they affect enforcement matters, through internal means
and, where appropriate, the retention of outside experts.
QUESTION
2. To foster competition in ``middleware'' the PFJ
requires disclosure of APIs and
[[Page 30243]]
similar information, but it then limits this provision only to those
instances where disclosure would be for ``the sole purpose of
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product.''
Except for the limitation, this provision is almost exactly like a
comparable provision in Judge Jackson's interim consent decree. Why
did the Department decide to add this limitation to the PFJ, and
what effect will the inclusion of the limitation have on restoring
competition? Please explain the competitive significance of web-
based services, and whether the PFJ guarantees interoperability with
the servers that operate those web-based services?
ANSWER
The insertion of``for the sole purpose of interoperating
with a Windows Operating System Product'' in Section III.D. of
the proposed Final Judgment simply clarifies that the APIs must be
used for the purpose intended under the settlement (and as intended
in Judge Jackson's order)- ensuring that developers of competing
middleware products will have full access to the same information
that Microsoft middleware uses to interoperate with the Windows
operating system. That is, the disclosure is not intended to permit
misappropriation of Microsoft's intellectual property for other
uses. The insertion of this clause will not change the provision's
ability to restore competition in any way. The concept of``web-
based'' services is constantly evolving as companies find new
ways to use the Internet. The ultimate competitive significance of
such services remains to be determined.
The Department's case addressed the topic of web-based services
only with respect to the middleware threat to the operating system.
Section III.E. of the proposed Final Judgment ensures that software
developers will have full access to, and be able to use, the
communication protocols necessary for server operating system
software located on a server computer to interoperate with the
functionality embedded in the Windows operating system.
QUESTION
3. The Department has concluded that the PFJ is in the
``public interest,'' as required by the Tunney Act. Are
you aware of any other case where a Tunney Act ``public
interest'' determination has occurred with respect to a
settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already has
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals? To what extent should the
scope of the District Court's deference to the Antitrust Division
under the Tunney Act be affected by a Court of Appeals'' prior
affirmance of Sherman Act liability'?
ANSWER
The Department is not aware of a case where a court has made a
Tunney Act ``public interest'' determination with respect
to a settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already
had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Beyond the Department's
position set forth in its submissions to the Court, it would be
inappropriate for the Department to comment on the appropriate scope
of the Court's discretion because the Court's review of the proposed
Final Judgment is pending under the Tunney Act.
QUESTION
4. The Court of Appeals remanded the remedy issue because, among
other reasons, the District Court failed to demonstrate how
divestiture relief was designed to ``unfetter [the] 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'' Microsoft IlL 253 F.3d
at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. V. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577
(1972), United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250
(1968)). Please describe how the PFJ meets this standard dictated by
the appellate court. (a) How does the PFJ ``terminate the
monopoly'' Microsoft was found by the Appellate Court to have
unlawfully maintained over PC operating system software? (b) How
does the PFJ ``deny to Microsoft the fruits of its Section 2
violation?'' and (c) How does the PFJ ``ensure that there
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the
future?''
ANSWER
In the two cases quoted above, the monopoly in question was
obtained by unlawful means. It was never alleged in this case,
however, that Microsoft unlawfully obtained its operating system
monopoly. Further, as the Court of Appeals noted, ``the
District Court expressly did not adopt the position that Microsoft
would have lost its position in the OS market but for its
anticompetitive behavior.'' U.S.v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107
(DC Cir. 2001). The Court of Appeals also went on to hold that:
``[s]tructural relief, which is'' designed to eliminate
the monopoly altogether ... require[s] a clear indication of a
significant causal connection between the conduct and creation or
maintenance of the market power.'' Absent such causation, the
antitrust defendant's unlawful behavior should be remedied by
``an injunction against continuation of that conduct.''
Id. at 106 (quoting 3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUSTLAW
[653b, at 91-92, and paragraph 650a, at 67).
The injunctive relief in this case, with no allegation Microsoft
unlawfully obtained its operating system monopoly, is designed to
stop the unlawful conduct, prevent its recurrence and restore lost
competition in the market. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972) and United
States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)).
The proposed Final Judgment stops the offending conduct by
enjoining the unlawful actions that the District Court and the Court
of Appeals sustained. The proposed Final Judgment enjoins exclusive
and unlawful dealing, gives computer manufacturers and consumers
extensive control of the desktop and initial boot sequence, ensures
that developers can develop products that interoperate with the
Windows operating system, and prohibits a broad range of retaliatory
conduct. The proposed Final Judgment prevents the recurrence of the
conduct identified as unlawful by addressing the broad range of
potential strategies Microsoft might deploy to impede the emergence
of competing middleware products. The proposed Final Judgment also
seeks to restore lost competition posed by the potential middleware
threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly by requiring
Microsoft to, among other things: (i) disclose APIs that will give
independent software developers the opportunity to match Microsoft's
middleware functionality.;
(ii) allow computer manufacturers and users to replace Microsoft
middleware with independently developed middleware; and (iii) create
and preserve ``default'' settings that will ensure that
Microsoft's middleware does not over-ride the selection of third-
party middleware products.
QUESTION
5. Are there findings by the appellate court against Microsoft
that are not addressed by the PFJ? If so, what were the reasons why
the Department chose not to address these findings?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment addresses each of the Court of
Appeals'' findings, and even goes beyond them.
QUESTION
6. The Court of Appeals held that it was illegal for Microsoft
to bind products together with Windows by ``commingling
code'' because this practice helped Microsoft unlawfully
maintain its desktop operating system monopoly. The Court concluded
that code commingling has an ``anticompetitive effect'' by
deterring OEMs from pre-installing rival software, ``thereby
reducing the rivals'' usage share and, hence, developers''
interest in rivals'' APIs as an alternative to the API set
exposed by Microsoft's operating system.'' Microsoft Ill, 153
F.3d at 66. How does the PFJ prevent Microsoft from future unlawful
commingling of non-Windows code with Windows?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment addresses these issues by requiring
Microsoft to redesign its operating %'stem to include an effective
add/remove function for all Microsoft middleware products and to
permit competing middleware to take on a default status that
,,','ill override middleware functions Microsoft has integrated into
the operating system. The proposed Final Judgment does not contain
an absolute prohibition on Microsoft commingling code within
Windows, and the Department does not interpret the Court of Appeals
decision as requiring such relief.
QUESTION
7. You have said that Microsoft ``won the right to sell
integrated products,'' and that ``the tying claim was
eliminated by the appeals court.'' (Business Week, November 19,
2001, p. 116). Other observers, however, argue that the Court of
Appeals simply vacated the per se findings of a tying law violation
and remanded that issue for consideration under a ``rule of
reason'' standard? Why did the Department conclude that the
tying claim was ``eliminated'' and
[[Page 30244]]
not simply remanded to be retried under a different standard? What
are the circumstances, if any, under which the court or the
Department could find it impermissible for Microsoft to
``integrate'' a product with its Windows operating system?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals reversed the per se tying claim and
remanded it to the lower court for adjudication under a more
rigorous legal standard. The Court also held that if the Department
pursued the tying claim on remand it would be precluded from arguing
any theory of harm relying on a precise definition of browsers or
barriers to entry, even though the government would have the burden
of showing an anticompetitive effect in the browser market. The
Court of Appeals also invited an extensive and complex analysis of
pricing, noting that other operating system manufacturers included
Web browsers in their operating systems, and requiring the
plaintiffs to show that any anticompetitive effects outweighed the
procompetitive effects. In light of the Court's decision and the
desire to achieve prompt relief for consumers without protracted
litigation and appeals, the Department and the state plaintiffs
decided not to pursue the tying claim. Given the continuing pendency
of this litigation and the possibility that these issues may arise
in other contexts, it is not appropriate for the Department to
speculate under what circumstances Microsoft's conduct would be
impermissible.
QUESTION
8. The CIS acknowledges that the ``users rarely switched
from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their
disposal.'' It has been suggested that the most effective way
to restore competition and to prevent future misconduct would be to
require Microsoft to sell a product that is simply an operating
system without all of the various applications that are now
incorporated into Windows. Without such a requirement, the argument
goes, consumers would be forced to procure two products if they
choose to use a non-Microsoft version of a product that has been
included in the operating system--Microsoft's version and the
competitor's version. If Microsoft middleware is preinstalled with
Windows, how do you think the adoption rate by users of non-
Microsoft middleware will be affected? Did the Department consider
including in the PFJ a requirement that Microsoft sell a version of
Windows that is solely an operating system without other
applications bundled with it?
ANSWER
The Department did consider, and ultimately, reject a remedy
that would have required Microsoft to sell a version of its
operating system that did not contain some or all of the
applications that it typically includes with the Windows operating
system. First, this relief would have been most appropriate to
remedy the tying and attempted monopolization liability (which were
not sustained by the Court of Appeals), rather than for monopoly
maintenance. Second, the remedy would reduce consumer choice rather
than increase it. The proposed Final Judgment provides computer
manufacturers the option of featuring, and end users the option of
selecting, alternative middleware products, which they may choose to
use or replace. Even if Microsoft middleware is preinstalled on the
computer, computer manufacturers will have the ability to remove
access to it and replace it with independently developed middleware.
In this way, competition for consumer patronage of middleware
products, unfettered by artificial restrictions by Microsoft, will
determine adoption rates.
QUESTION
9. Some observers claim the Court of Appeals found that
Microsoft's technological tying, particularly its ``commingling
of code,'' was an illegal act of monopolization under Section 2
of the Sherman Act, but that there was insufficient evidence to
determine that the same conduct violated Section 1. Do you agree
with this? Does the PFJ provide a remedy for such misconduct? In
your analysis, does the failure to find that the conduct violated
Section 1 obviate the need to provide a remedy for the violation the
court found under Section 2?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals observed some overlap between the tying
claim and the code integration issues under the monopoly maintenance
claim. However, as the Court of Appeals noted, the District Court
concluded that tying and commingling are two different things
--''[a]lthough the District Court also found that
Microsoft commingled the operating system-only and browser-only
routines in the same library files, it did not include this as a
basis for tying liability despite plaintiffs'' request that it
do so.'' U.S.v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 85 (DC Cir. 2001). The
Department believes that the proposed Final Judgment effectively
addresses the integration issues of the monopoly maintenance claim
by requiting Microsoft to redesign its operating system to include
an effective add/remove function for all Microsoft middleware
products and to permit competing middleware to be featured in its
place, as well as take on a default status that will, if the
consumer chooses, override middleware functions Microsoft has
integrated into the operating system.
QUESTION
10. Some Wall Street analysts have opined that the PFJ imposes
no obligation on Microsoft 1o change its business practices or
redesign its products. Instead, these analysts have concluded, the
PFJ seeks to restore competition by permitting OEMs to add products
to Microsoft's desk-top. Is this view of the PFJ accurate? Is it the
Department's position that OEMs are in the best economic position to
restore competition in personal computing? If so, what is the basis
for that position? Are there other entities that might be in a
position to help restore competition?
ANSWER
The Department fundamentally disagrees with this
characterization of the proposed Final Judgment.
The proposed Final Judgment will require Microsoft to
fundamentally change the way in which it deals with computer
manufacturers, Internet access providers, software developers and
others within the computer industry with regard to the manner in
which it designs, sells, and shares information regarding its
operating system. The proposed Final Judgment does not reflect a
position by the Department that computer manufacturers are the only
distribution outlet for software or that they are the only ones in a
position to help restore competition. In fact, consumers
increasingly obtain software in various distribution channels apart
from computer manufacturers.
Rather, certain provisions in the proposed Final Judgment focus
on computer manufacturers because the restrictions on computer
manufacturers to distribute software was a primary focus of the case
and the Court of Appeals concluded that computer manufacturers were
a critical distribution channel for Windows, as well as for
middleware and other software applications.
QUESTION
11. A significant portion of the Microsoft III opinion was
devoted to Microsoft's conduct vis-a-vis Java technology. The Court
found Microsoft unlawfully used distribution agreements to forestall
competition with middleware manufacturers. See, e.g., Microsoft III,
253 F.3d at 74-78. The court found these agreements to be
anticompetitive because the), ``foreclosed a substantial
portion of the field for.., distribution and because, in so doing,
they protected Microsoft's monopoly from a middleware threat''
Id. at 76. Does the PFJ addressees such practices?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment addresses such conduct by
prohibiting Microsoft from entering into agreements that require
software developers and other industry participants to exclusively
distribute, promote, use or support a Microsoft middleware or
operating system product, and by prohibiting Microsoft from
retaliating against software developers who support competing
middleware products.
QUESTION
12. The Supreme Court has said that in an antitrust remedy,
``it is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to that
[unlawful] end be left open and that only the worn one be
closed.'' International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S.
392,401 (1947). The Court also has made clear that injunctive relief
which simply ``forbid[s] a repetition of the illegal conduct is
not sufficient under Section 2, because defendants ``could
retain the full dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit
from the unlawful restraints of trade which the3'' had
inflicted on competitors.'' Schine Chain Theatres. Inc. v.
United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948). Are the standards
enunciated by the Court in International Salt and Schine Chain
Theatres applicable in the Microsoft case? If so, would you identify
provisions in the PFJ that satisfy these standards?
ANSWER
The obligations imposed on Microsoft in the proposed Final
Judgment go considerably beyond merely stopping, and preventing the
[[Page 30245]]
recurrence of, the specific acts found unlawful by the Court of
Appeals. Specifically, the proposed Final Judgment goes further by:
(i) applying a broad definition of middleware products, which goes
well beyond the Web browser and Java technologies that were the
focus of the Department's case, to include all of the technologies
that have the potential to be middleware threats to Microsoft's
operating system monopoly, including e-mail clients, media players,
instant messaging software and future middleware developments;
(ii) requiting the disclosure or licensing of middleware
interfaces and server communications protocols not previously
disclosed to ensure that non-Microsoft middleware and server
software can interoperate with Microsoft's operating system; (iii)
ensuring that computer manufacturers and consumers have extensive
control of the desktop and initial boot sequence; (iv) broadly
banning certain exclusive dealing, retaliation and discrimination by
Microsoft beyond the practices affirmed as anticompetitive by the
Court of Appeals; (v) requiting Microsoft to license its operating
system to key computer manufacturers on uniform terms; (vi)
requiting Microsoft to license intellectual property to computer
manufacturers and software developers necessary for them to exercise
their tights under the proposed settlement; and (vii) implementing a
panel of three independent, on-site, full-time experts to assist in
enforcing the proposed Final Judgment.
QUESTION
13. The Supreme Court also has held that a Section 2
monopolization remedy ``must break up or render impotent the
monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act.'' United
States v. Grinnelll Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966). Does the PFJ
``render impotent'' Microsoft's Windows monopoly and, if
so, how?
ANSWER
In the case against Microsoft there has never been any
contention that Microsoft obtained its operating system monopoly
through unlawful means. Instead, the allegation sustained by the
Court of Appeals was that Microsoft engaged in specific unlawful
acts, not a course of conduct, to maintain its monopoly in violation
of Section 2. Because relief in a Section 2 case must have its
foundation in the offending conduct, the Department's view was that
the monopoly maintenance finding, as modified by the Court of
Appeals, and without the ``course-of-conduct''
theor3'', did not sustain a broad-ranging remedy, such as a
``break up'' of Microsoft's operating system monopoly,
that went beyond what was necessary to address Microsoft's unlawful
responses to the middleware threat. Thus, the proposed Final
Judgment does not seek such break-up relief.
QUESTION
14. There has been considerable discussion about Microsoft's
Windows XP product, with some critics arguing that Microsoft is
repeating the same technical binding, bundling and monopoly
maintenance tactics found by the court to be unlawful when used in
the past against Microsoft's competitors. If true, this allegation
would be significant, given the appellate court's instruction
``that there remain no practices likely to result in
monopolization in the future,'' Microsoft I!I, 253 F.3d at 103
(quoting United States v. United Shore Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250
(1968)). Some critics have also charged that Microsoft's broad .NET
strategy is an effort to build upon the fruits of Microsoft's past
unlawful conduct and remake the Internet as a Microsoft-proprietary
Internet. Does the PFJ apply to Windows XP or to Microsoft's NET
strategy? If not, why has the Department decided not to apply the
settlement to these products? Can competition in the operating
system be restored without addressing these products?
ANSWER
With the monopoly maintenance claim as the only surviving basis
for relief, the proposed Final Judgment must focus on middleware or
middleware-type threats to the operating system, not
Microsoft'' s participation in other markets in a way unrelated
to the conduct by Microsoft found unlawful by the Court of Appeals.
The proposed Final Judgment expressly applies to Windows XP and any
successors during the term of the judgment (see definition of
Wirrdows Operating System Product). It also applies to a wide
variety of current and future Microsoft middleware products. What
has been labeled .NET is a relatively new, diverse initiative by
Microsoft in the market. As parts of.NET come more fully to
fruition, they will be evaluated under the proposed Final Judgment,
as would any other software. For instance, parts of the .NET
strategy are likely to be middleware, such as instant messaging
clients. To the extent .NET software or conduct implicates the
anticompetitive acts raised in the case, it would be addressed under
the proposed Final Judgment or otherwise by the Department.
QUESTION
15. Many of the provisions of the PFJ appear to assume that OEMs
will act to aggregate operating system software and assume the role
of desktop design and software packaging in the PC distribution
chain. According to many observers, however, there simply is no
financial incentive for OEMs to do anything but accept the full
Microsoft software package. What is the Department's position on
this issue? Was any consideration given to reports that OEMs did not
take advantage of an offer by Microsoft this past summer to replace
icons in the Windows XP desktop?
ANSWER
During the trial, the Department showed, and the Court of
Appeals found, that computer manufacturers are a key distribution
channel for Windows, as well as for middleware and other software
applications. Further, even before the proposed Final Judgment was
executed, computer manufacturers were entering into agreements with
non-Microsoft middleware suppliers to place their products on the
Windows operating system. With the implementation of the proposed
Final Judgment, which provides computer manufacturers with greater
freedom with respect to replacing Microsoft middleware products,
computer manufacturers should have even greater incentives to do so.
The powers extend well beyond the limited rights Microsoft afforded
when Windows XP was introduced this past summer. The true test will
occur as the uncertainty surrounding the case is removed by the
proposed Final Judgment, when the proposed Final Judgment's anti-
retaliation and anti-discrimination terms are in place, and when new
middleware products emerge on the market.
QUESTION
16. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft's conduct with
respect to Java, in which the Court found it to engage in a
``campaign to deceive [Java] developers'' and
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to defeat
competition to its operating system monopoly violated Section 2 of
the Sherman Act. The Court held ``Microsoft's conduct related
to its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the
operating system in a manner not attributable either to the
superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its makers,
and therefore was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers
no procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive
developers. Accordingly, we conclude this Conduct is exclusionary,
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.'' Microsoft III,
Slip Op. p. 101. As you ``know, the lower court decree included
a provision designed to prevent deliberate sabotaging of competing
products by Microsoft. Does the PFJ restrict Microsoft's ability to
modify, alter, or refuse to support computer industry standards,
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of
competitor platform, middleware or applications software?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment does not expressly restrict
Microsoft's ability to modify, alter, or refuse to support computer
industry standards, or engage in campaigns to deceive software
developers. The Department chose not to include the referenced
provision because the term originally included in Judge Jackson's
order allowed Microsoft to take steps to change its operating system
that would interfere with third-party's middleware to interoperate
as long as Microsoft informed the third part5, of the change and
what, if anything, could be done to fix the problem. This would
have, in effect, given Microsoft a license to interfere with
competing middleware as long as it simply notified the competing
developer. In addition, this provision would have been difficult for
the Department to enforce in this case because of the constant
changes Microsoft makes to its operating system, which while
potentially procompetitive, may have the unintentional consequence
of affecting a competing product's interoperability. Therefore,
implementing this provision would have resulted in unnecessary
compliance disputes. The proposed Final Judgment hinders
Microsoft'' s ability to disadvantage competing middleware
developers by making the means
[[Page 30246]]
by which middleware products interoperate with the operating system
more transparent. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to
now disclose those APIs that its middleware products use to
interoperate with the operating system. Disclosure of these APIs
will make it harder for Microsoft to interfere with competing
middleware. Further, to the extent computer industry standards are
implemented in communications protocols, as often occurs, Microsoft
must license those protocols in accordance with Section III.E.,
including any modifications or alterations to the industry standard
protocols. When the industry standard is implemented between a
Microsoft middleware product, such as its Java Virtual Machine, and
the operating system, Microsoft must disclose that interface.
QUESTION
17. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act by entering into an exclusive contract with Apple
that required Apple to install Internet Explorer as the Macintosh
browser. Microsoft Ill, 252 F.3d at 72-74. Many observers
accuse Microsoft of having forced Apple to enter into the contract
by threatening to withhold the porting of Microsoft Office to the
Macintosh operating system. Does the PFJ prohibit Microsoft from
threatening to withhold development of Microsoft Office with respect
to other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes, and
phones? If no, why did the Department choose not to address this
concern in the PFJ?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment would prohibit Microsoft from
threatening to withhold the development of Microsoft Office for
other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes and phones,
if it did so because the software or hardware developer was
developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting ant''
software that competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating
system products (or any software that runs on any software that
competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating system products),
or because the developer exercises any of the options or
alternatives provided for under the proposed Final Judgment.
QUESTION
18. You have been quoted as saying that various software and
computer services companies are in the process of purchasing space
on the desktop from Microsoft. (Business Week, November 19, 2001, p.
116). In the Department's view, is the space on the desktop on
computers manufactured by the OEMs owned by Microsoft or should that
space be the property of the computer manufacturers?
ANSWER
Whether the space on the desktop is owned by Microsoft or is the
property of the computer manufacturers does not impact the
effectiveness of the proposed Final Judgment in remedying the
anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. The Department does not have a
view as to whether the space on the desktop should be viewed as the
property of Microsoft or the computer manufacturers. The Department
does have the view that Microsoft middleware and competing
middleware should compete for the space, and the proposed Final
Judgment ensures that this competition occurs.
QUESTION
19. The CIS suggests the Department has embraced the goal of
encouraging competitive development of ``middleware'' in
order that such middleware can become the type of platform software
that could challenge the operating system monopoly. The settlement
requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to remove consumer
``access'' to the company's ``middleware.'' It
has been observed, however, that since the code for Microsoft's
``middleware'' is commingled with Windows, OEMs are only
allowed to remove the icon for a middleware application. The CIS
seems to acknowledge that Microsoft understood that software
developers would only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in
numbers large enough to threaten the applications barrier to entry
if they believe that Navigator would emerge as the standard software
employed to browse the web. Can you explain why you believe third-
party application developers would write applications to non-
Microsoft APIs if the Microsoft middleware APIs as well as the
Windows APIs will be present on over 95% of the personal computers
sold?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment will require Microsoft to do more
than simply allow for the removal of its middleware icons. It
requires that Microsoft allow end users and computer manufacturers
to remove other means of access to, and override automatic
invocations of, Microsoft middleware products and replace them with
independently developed middleware products. Therefore, regardless
of whether some portion of the Microsoft middleware code remains,
end users and computer manufacturers can remove access to such
middleware and replace it with alternative middleware. As the trial
demonstrated, actual usage of a middleware product by the consumer,
and not simply the presence of the product's code on the computer,
has competitive significance. The marketplace, however, will
determine whether any particular middleware product becomes
sufficiently ubiquitous. This will ensure that competing middleware
products will have the opportunity to compete for placement on the
personal computer and that consumers will have a choice.
QUESTION
20. Concerns have been raised about the consequences of several
``provisos'' that have been included in the PFJ. For
example, Section III.H.3 prohibits Microsoft from denying consumers
the choice of using competing applications, but a proviso to this
language states that Microsoft can challenge a consumer's decision
to choose an application other than its own after 14 days and
encourage the consumer to switch back to the Microsoft product. What
does the Department believe will be the impact of the messages that
Microsoft will be able to send to consumers on their own computers?
Are other companies permitted to send comparable messages to
consumers who choose to utilize Microsoft products? Finally, why did
the Department choose a period of 14 days as opposed to some other
period of time?
ANSWER
It is incorrect that the proposed Final Judgment allows
Microsoft to ``challenge'' a consumer's decision to select
a non-Microsoft middleware product. Some end users prefer to have
icons readily available on the desktop; others prefer a ``clean
desktop.'' In Windows XP, Microsoft has a Clean Desktop Wizard,
which asks a user whether he or she would like to have unused icons
(whether for Microsoft products or other products) taken off the
desktop and placed in a folder, where they can still be easily
accessed. The proposed Final Judgment allows Microsoft to continue
providing this cleanup function, which the user can choose to take
advantage of or not. The impact will be that end users can exercise
choice. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to wait 14
days before it seeks confirmation from the end user because this
will ensure that end users have a meaningful opportunity to
determine which products, if any, the, want to keep on the desktop.
QUESTION
21. Under Sections III.H and VI.N, a competing middleware
application receives protection under the PFJ, but this protection
applies only if the competitor ships at least one million units over
the course of a year. Why did the Department choose that particular
number? Did the Department give consideration to the argument that
small innovators, who may be in the initial stages of product
development and sales, might be in need of greater protection than a
company capable of selling more than one million units?
ANSWER
The one million copies figure is implicated only in the
operative provision contained in Section III.H. of the proposed
Final Judgment and only to a very limited extent in Section III.D.
Section III.H. requires Microsoft to include in Windows an effective
add/remove function to allow end users and computer manufacturers to
enable or remove access to Microsoft and non-Microsoft middleware
products, and to permit non-Microsoft middleware products to take on
a default status that will override middleware functions Microsoft
has integrated into the operating system. Distribution of only one
million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage, is a
relatively minor threshold in the software industry today, and
including this limited qualification in Section III.H. will ensure
that Microsoft's affirmative obligations under these provisions will
not be triggered by minor, or even nonexistent, products that have
not established a competitive potential in the market and that might
even be unknown to Microsoft development personnel.
The one million copies figure applies in even a more limited
fashion to Section III.D. That section requires Microsoft to
disclose to
[[Page 30247]]
software and hardware developers, computer manufacturers and others
in the industry certain APIs and other technical information that
Microsoft's middleware products use to interoperate with the Windows
operating system. The one million copy, limitation applies only to
disclosures of interfaces for future middleware that has not yet
been developed or even conceived. The Department considered the
competitive impact of smaller innovators. In fact, the proposed
Final Judgment provides protection for nascent middleware products
by prohibiting Microsoft from retaliating or discriminating against
them, regardless of the number of copies that they distribute.
22. [The letter skips this question.]
QUESTION
23. Section III.B of the PFJ prohibits Microsoft from engaging
in discriminator3'' pricing of its desktop operating system
with OEMs. Does the PFJ also prohibit use of this same kind of
discriminatory pricing against server operating systems and other
non-Windows software?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment does not require Microsoft to use
uniform terms and conditions when licensing its server operating
system or other non-Windows software.
QUESTION
24. The interim decree proposed by Judge Jackson included a
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware software.
Does the PFJ contain a comparable provision? If not, what was the
Department's rationale for not including this prohibition in the
proposed settlement?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment does not contain an express
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware products.
As explained more fully in response to question 16. the Department
chose not to include this type of provision because it would have
given Microsoft a license to interfere with competing middleware as
long as it simply notified the competing developer. In addition, it
would have been difficult for the Department to enforce the
provision because of the constant changes Microsoft makes to its
operating system. Many of these changes would have been known by
Microsoft to have the unintended consequence of affecting a
competing product's interoperability. Instead, the proposed Final
Judgment contains provisions that require Microsoft to provide
competing middleware with APIs needed to interoperate with the
Windows operating system.
QUESTION
25. Why did the Department choose not to present evidence to the
District Court on current PC operating system market developments,
including changes in the Internet browser market share since the
trial began? Did the Department undertake an investigation of
current market developments to determine the impact of the PFJ on
the existing market realities? For example, was there an analysis of
the impact of the proposed settlement on Microsoft's proposed future
products and services?
ANSWER
Judge Kollar-Kotelly had scheduled an evidentiary heating on
remedy to take place in 2002. The Department would have had the
opportunity to present evidence to the Court at that time. There was
no opportunity to present evidence to the Court at an earlier date.
The Department conducted an ongoing evaluation of market
developments and the impact of the proposed Final Judgment on
existing market realities. One result of this evaluation was to
broaden the definition of middleware to include new potential
threats to the operating system, including email clients, media
players, instant messaging software and future middleware
developments. The Department also analyzed the impact of the Court
of Appeals'' decision and the proposed Final Judgment on
Microsoft's future products and services.
QUESTION
26. The CIS suggests that the District Court's role under the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act is limited to reviewing the
remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has
alleged in its complaint. See CIS at p. 67. Yet the authorities
cited for that proposition appear to be cases that were settled
before trial. Some observers argue that in this case the District
Court should review the settlement in relationship to the Court of
Appeals ruling rather than to the violations alleged in the original
complaint. Does the Department agree with that assessment?
ANSWER
Beyond the Department's position set forth in its submissions to
the Court, the Department cannot comment on the appropriate review
by the Court because the Court's review of the proposed Final
Judgment is pending under the Tunney Act.
QUESTION
27. Has the Department undertaken any studies to determine the
effectiveness of its prior consent decree with Microsoft in
restoring competition? How do you believe prior obstacles to
enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft are addressed in the
PFJ?
ANSWER
The Department has not conducted a formal study on the
effectiveness of the prior consent decree with Microsoft. In its
ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed Final
Judgment, however, the Department did consider the prior consent
decree with Microsoft. There has been no determination by a court of
obstacles to enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft.
Moreover, the proposed Final Judgment in this case contains some of
the most stringent enforcement provisions contained in a modern
consent decree. In addition to the ordinary prosecutorial access
powers, the proposed Final Judgment requires an independent, full-
time, on-site technical compliance team and a provision under which
the term of the judgment may be extended by up to two years in the
event the Court finds serious, systemic violations.
QUESTION
28. Do you believe that current antitrust law is sufficient to
guarantee not only competition but timely enforcement in areas such
as the software industry?
ANSWER
The Department believes that the current antitrust. laws are
sufficient to guarantee not only competition, but timely enforcement
in high-tech areas, such as the software industry.
QUESTION
29. What steps, if any, should be taken, legislatively or
otherwise, to ensure that the Department has the proper economic and
technological resources to enforce the law in the software industry?
ANSWER
The Department does not believe that any changes to the
antitrust laws are needed to ensure that the Department has the
proper economic and technological resources to enforce the law in
the software industry or other high-tech areas. The Department
should continue to have the adequate resources to enforce the laws
as long as appropriately funded by the Congress. Please do not
hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance on this or an),
other matter.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Bryant
Assistant Attorney General
1150 SEVENTEEMTH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C 20036
December 11, 2001
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Committee on the Judiciary United
States Senate Washing-ton, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch:
The Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in U.S v. Microsoft is a
woefully inadequate end to more than 11 years of investigation and
litigation against Microsoft Corporation. There is no longer a
debate over Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws.
Microsoft has been found liable before the District Court. Microsoft
lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit sitting en banc in a 7-0
decision. Microsoft's petition for a rehearing before the Court of
Appeals was refused. Microsoft's petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court was also denied. The courts have decided that
Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used that power
unlawfully to protect its monopoly.
The case now turns back to the District Court for review under
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act--the so-called
Tunney Act. Under the Tunney Act the Court must reach an independent
judgment on whether or not the settlement is in the ``public
interest.'' The District Court finds itself in an interesting
posture in that in the 30 years since the Tunney Act was enacted, it
has never been applied in a case which has been litigated and
affirmed. What is unique
[[Page 30248]]
about the application of the Tunney Act in U.S. v. Microsoft is that
rather than some ambiguous ``public interest'' standard,
the District Court will now be obligated to reach a decision on
whether or not the settlement corresponds to the clear guidance of
the Court of Appeals.
The court of appeals set out a simple standard for measuring the
legal sufficiency of any remedy selected in the Microsoft
litigation: the remedy must ``seek to `unfetter [the]
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.''' United
States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 103 (DC Cir.
2001)(``Microsoft III'') (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and United States v. United Shoe
Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)). The Court of Appeals was
very deliberate in its handling of this case, and its finely crafted
opinion manifestly chose its words and precedents with care. In
citing the Ford Autolite and United Shoe cases, the DC Circuit
underscored the clear guidance of the Supreme Court in
monopolization cases. The DC Circuit provided equally
straightforward guidance in explaining Microsoft's liability for
illegal monopolization. At the core of the case was Microsoft's
successful campaign to eliminate the dual threats of Netscape's
Navigator web browser and the Java programming language. Both
Navigator and Java were ``platform threats'' to
Microsoft's underlying operating system. Both Navigator and Java
served as ``middleware.'' ``Middleware'' means
that these programs exposed applications programming interfaces
(APIs) so that third party applications developers could write
applications to Navigator and Java in lieu of the underlying Windows
operating system. And because both Navigator and Java ran on
operating systems other than Windows they fundamentally threatened
the Windows operating system, Microsoft's core source of monopoly
power. The DC Circuit could not have been clearer on these points.
See Microsoft HI, 253 F.3d at 53-56. 60. At a minimum any
proposed settlement must effectively remedy this problem.
Unfortunately, the remedy accepted by the Antitrust Division of
the Justice Department ignores most of the key findings by both the
Court of Appeals and the District Court. The PFJ falls far short of
the standards for relief clearly articulated by the Court of Appeals
and the United States Supreme Court. The PFJ includes provisions
that potentially make the competitive landscape of the software
industry worse. And, the PFJ contains so many ambiguities and
loopholes as to make it unenforceable, and likely to guarantee years
of additional litigation.
That the PFJ will hamper Microsoft's illegal behavior not at all
is shown by the reactions of the investment community:
``We have review the Settlement Agreement between MSFT and
the DoJ ... the states (and to a lesser degree the DoJ) had talked
tough and set expectations for a knock- out victory, and now must
accept criticism that they walked away with too little concessions
from Microsoft.'' Goldman Sachs, 11/2/01
``As we have stated before, we believe a settlement is a
best case scenario for Microsoft. And, this settlement in particular
seems like a win for Microsoft being that it would preserve
Microsoft's ability to bundle its Internet assets with Windows XP
and ``2 future operating systems--a plus for the company.
In fact, it appears that Internet assets such as Passport are
untouched. Also, as is typical with legal judgments, this settlement
is backward looking, not forward looking. In other words, it looks
at processes in the past, but not potential development of the
future.'' Morgan Stanley, 11/02/01
``The deal ... appears to be more, better, and
faster'' than we expected in a settlement deal between
Microsoft and DoJ. The deal will apparently require few if any
changes in Windows XP and leave important aspects of Microsoft's
market power intact.'' Prudential Financial, 11/01/01
``With a dramatic win last week, Microsoft appears to be on
its way to putting the U.S. antitrust case behind it. The PFJ
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft gives little for
Microsoft's competitors to cheer about .... There is very little
chance that competitors could prove or win effective relief from
violation of this agreement, in our view.'' Schwab Capital
Markets, 11/6/01
This takes on particular importance given the state of the
software market. Since the end of the trial before the District
Court the market has changed substantially: Microsoft's monopolies
are stronger in each of its core markets with both the Windows
operating system and the Office suite now higher than 92 percent and
95 percent, respectively;
Microsoft has achieved a new monopoly in web browsers;
Competitive forces that may have existed in the past--most
notably the Linux operating system--now clearly pose no threat
to Microsoft's monopoly; and Microsoft has made clear it intends to
further protect and extend its monopoly through a series of
initiatives including, Hailstorm (web-services); Windows XP, and
.NET.
Some policy makers have adopted the view that settling this case
could somehow revive the slowing U.S. economy. This is an absurd
proposition. The problem with the PC sector today is that demand has
slowed and prices for PC hardware have plummeted (as opposed to
Microsoft's software which has effectively increased in price). It
is simply incorrect to equate slowing PC demand with Microsoft's
legal problems. Also, we are unaware of any economic theory that
suggests that monopolies maintained by predatory conduct--as
opposed to competition and innovation--can spur economic
growth. As the Precursor Group recently pointed out: ``investor
lament about the lack of broadband and the absence of killer
applications is the other side of the coin'' to investor glee
with the market power and profits of incumbent Bell, Cable; and
Microsoft monopolies ... having legal monopolies on the major access
points to the Internet is unlikely to maximize innovation and growth
that investors are counting on.''
The briefing memorandum offered in support of these views
documents general problems with the PFJ and specific section-by-
section analysis of the PFJ's provisions. However, this memorandum
is meant to be illustrative--not comprehensive--to give
policy makers a preview of the issues to be examined under the
Tunney Act. The Antitrust Division and Microsoft will continue to
insist that the PFJ sufficiently remedies the issues in the case.
Yet these arguments simply cannot be squared with the fact that
every independent investment analyst and industry analyst has
concluded that this remedy will have n----9o material
impact on Microsoft's business.
Policy makers also need to pay attention to the precedent this
case establishes. In settling the most important antitrust case in
decades through a remedy that will have not impact on the current or
future competitive landscape, and absolutely no deterrent effect on
the defendant, the Department of Justice has effectively repealed a
major segment of the nation's antitrust laws. Moreover, any
potential witness with knowledge of anticompetitive conduct in a
monopolized market has to weigh the potential benefit of his or her
testimony against the likely response of the defendant monopolist.
The DOJ's proposed meaningless remedy would insure that no witness
would ever testify against Microsoft in any future enforcement
action.
The PFJ, in short, places this defendant in a position of
effectively being above the antitrust laws, and does so by
surrendering the government's victory in the District Court and the
unanimous seven-member Court of Appeals. That is a result that
should not be countenance&
Yours truly,
Robert H. Bork
RHB:lh
THE BARKSDALE GROUP
December 11, 2001
Jamer L. Barksdalo
[email protected]
(650) 234 5252
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
SD-224
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority, Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
SD-224
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch,
I was privileged to have received the invitation to testify at
your bearing on Wednesday, December 12, and had looked forward to
offering my views about the likely effect of the proposed Microsoft
settlement, particularly on the state of innovation in the high-
technology industries.
At the time I was asked to testify, it was suggested my
testimony might be useful to the committee because of my experience
as the CEO of Netscape, and especially because Netscape was founded
at a time when Microsoft was first charged with Sherman Act
violations. Those of us at Netscape competed with Microsoft at a
time when Microsoft was theoretically constrained by a
[[Page 30249]]
1995 Consent Decree, and thus I would be in a position to attest to
Microsoft's business conduct during a period in which
anticompetitive actions would theoretically be restrained.
Moreover, my testimony would have been free of any fear of
Microsoft. I am no longer in a business that competes with them. I
can afford to tell the truth, and the'' truth needs to be told.
It is an established legal fact that Microsoft has retaliated
against firms like Netscape, Intel, Apple, Real Networks, IBM,
Compaq and a host of others which have 2730 Sand Hill Road Suite
100. Menlo Purk, CA 94025 (650) 234 5200 main (650) 234 5201 fax
These developments have stiffened my resolve to do all that I
can to insure that competition and consumer choice are reintroduced
to the industry. It is vitally important that no company can do to a
future Netscape what Microsoft did to Netscape from 1995 to 1999. It
is universally recognized that that the 1995 Consent Decree was
ineffective. I respectfully submit that the Proposed Final Judgment
(``PFJ''), which is the subject of the hearing, will be
even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 Decree ha restoring
competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior.
Accordingly, Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion
that I help the committee answer one of the central questions:
If the PFJ had been in effect off along, how would it have
affected Netscape? More important, how will it affect future
Neiscapes? Impact on future Netscapes.
As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last moath by Microsoft
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 199a;
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into
being in the first place, The work of Marc Andreesen's team at the
University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely
have remained an academic exercise.
An innovative, independent browser company simply could not
survive under the PFJ. And such would be the effect on any company
developing in the future technologies as innovative as the browser
was in the mid 1990s.
That leaves the question of whether Microsoft itself would have
developed browser technology necessary far Internet navigation. My
belief is that .Microsoft would not have developed that technology,
It is abundantly clear that Microsoft viewed the browser and the
Internal itself as the principal threat to their care business of
selling operating systems and applications for desktop computers.
This PFJ allows Microsoft to employ the full fury, of its
multiple monopolies against anyone who would develop a browser or
any other technology that might have the potential to challenge any
aspects of Microsoft's business. I have reviewed the PFJ, and my
impression continues to be that it is a document whose principal
purpose is to protect Microsoft from competition,-and not to open up
the market to competition with Microsoft. I note, again with
pleasure, that the .remedy proposal by the state Attorneys General
who remain as plaintiffs would significantly open the market up to
competition.
deigned to compete with parts of Microsoft's business. The
courts ha-,'e repeatedly and unanimously found that this atmosphere
has led to the stifling of innovation throughout the high-technology
sector, harming consumers and the economy. Perhaps worse, Microsoft
has created an atmosphere where those who witness violations of the
law are afraid to share what they know with law enforcement
officials. The certainty of retaliation against these potential
witnesses has had, to varying degrees, the effect of obstructing
justice. One of the points I would have made had I been able to
testify, is that the settlement between Microsoft 2 and the
Department of Justice would do virtually nothing to protect Computer
manufacturers and others from Microsoft's retaliation. Which means
that, fundamentally, Microsoft's behavior will not be changed by it.
The settlement is simply that--a memorial to the end, not a
remedy for the past or for the future.
Over the last five years, the Committee has pushed soak-are
companies to step forward and make public their concerns about
Microsoft's illegal conduct, to identify how the company's
anticompetitve behavior was eliminating competition, discouraging
investment and stifling innovation. Witnesses were told--and !
was one of them--that policymakers understood that antitrust
law enforcement was critical to insuring competition in the software
industry. Witnesses were told that cooperation with the government
not only made good business sense; k was their public duty, and
necessary to insure the illegal conduct was appropriately remedied.
Not surprisingly, many were reluctant, fearful of what would
happen to their businesses and their employees. Many that came
forward paid a heavy price. Retaliation was meted out in a variety,
of ways. Meanwhile, the company that broke the taw has only grown
stronger. The Committee may wish to consider how'' this result
might impact the administration of justice, as well as any potential
future testimony in both the legislative and judicial branches of
government.
During the Cold War, we used to refer to a concept known as
Finlandization. What this referred to was that Finland was nominally
free of the Soviet Union, but was so threatened by it, it could not
act unilaterally without tempering its actions so as not to offend
its giant neighbor which could crash it at will. The technology
industry now, and at or the settlement with DOJ, is still
effectively, Finlandized by Microsoft. It is still dominated, and
will still cower in fear of the monopolist unbound. The resolution
of the antitrust litigation will to a large degree determine whether
or when that atmosphere changes. That may well be a larger issue
than the specifics of any proposed settlement. I note with some real
satisfaction that the remedy outlined last Friday by the nine state
Attorneys General who remain as plaintiffs would have the effect of
genuinely constraining Microsor2, and thus liberating the technology
industry from the shadow cast by Microsoft.
If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it is
unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture capita
financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a tragedy for
our nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the PFJ is
``good for the economy.''
If the PFJ goes into effect, it will subject an entire industry,
to dominance by an unconstrained monopolist, thus snuffing out
competition, consume:'' choice and innovation in perhaps our
nation's most important: industry. And worse, it will allow them to
extend their dominance to more traditional businesses such as
financial services, entertainment, telecommunications, and perhaps
many others.
Four years ago I appeared before the committee and was able to
demonstrate, with the help of the audience, that Microsoft
undoubtedly had a monopoly. Now it has been proven in the courts
that Microsoft not only has a monopoly, but they have illegally
maintained that monopoly through a series of abusive and predatory
actions. I submit to the committee that Microsoft is infinitely
stronger in each of their core businesses San they were four years
ago, despite the faro that their principal arguments have been
repudiated 8-0 by the federal courts. I hope you will keep
these thoughts in mind during your hearings. A more detailed
analysis of my views follows.
JLB/s
Attachment
Sincerely yours:
Jams L. Barksdale
Background on Netscape and the Internet browser.
Many of you know that Netscape was founded by Dr. Jim Clark and
Marc Andreesen. Marc had been a participant in National Science
Foundation programs in the early 90s at the University of Illinois,
where he and his team in 1993 wrote the code that became the first
easy to use browser. Even though the Internet and its ancestors had
been around since the 1960's, the graphical browser- which allowed
non-computer scientists to navigate the Internet--was the
technological innovation we had been waiting for. This led to the
creation of Netscape in 1994. This triggered an explosion eu
innovation, and changed all of our lives. I am proud to have served
as Netscape's CEO from 1995-1999, when it was acquired by AOL,
and very proud of the role Netscape had in changing the world for
the better.
A. API Disclosure.
The browser was and is a third party application. But it as also
a potential platform which exposed Application Programming
Interfaces (''.APIs'') and supported other third party,
applications. Third party applications writers desired to write
applications to the browser platform, because once these
applications worked with the browser, they would automatically run
on any operating system on which the browser was present, It is well
documented that Microsoft was concerned this phenomenon would
commoditize
[[Page 30250]]
Windows--meaning that this would bring about real competition
in the operating system market, Introducing competition to a
monopolized market would have been exactly the kind of positive
development our competition policies welcome.
Of course, the browser could not work without an operating
system. We needed Microsoft's cooperation and we needed the Windows
APIs necessary to insure Netscape's browser interoperated with
Windows.
It was well known that Windows ``95 would be a major
product release for Microsoft. We contacted Microsot5 in the spring
of 1995 about obtaining the necessary APIs, the same APIs they were
distributing to other 3rd party applications writers. Because
Microsoft viewed Netscape as a potential competitor, they withheld
the necessary APIs from Netscape for an extended period of
time--almost a year.
Question I. Would the PFJ have compelled the disclosure of the
APIs necessary for Netscape's browser to interoperate with Windows?
Answer: A resounding no. The PFJ would not have compelled
meaningful disclosure in a timely way.
It is advertised that the PFJ ``requires'' Microsoft
to disclose to third party software developers the APIs for Windows.
A review of the definitions reveals that the provision is
essentially meaningless. APIs for new versions of the Windows
operating systems .must be disclosed .in a ``timely
manner.'' ``Timely manner'' is triggered when
Microsot5 distributes beta. copies of its software to 150,000
``beta tenors.'' It is highly doubtful Microsoft ever
distributed beta copies of its software to 150,000 ``beta
testers''. More important, this provision allows Microsoft to
unilaterally decide act to reach the timely manner definition in the
first place, which insures they can avoid disclosure by simply
keeping the number of beta testers remains below 150,000.
The other disclosure requirements in the PFJ seem to call for
the kind of disclosure made to members of the Microsot5 Developers
Network. The problem of withholding necessary APIs only presents
itself when. the entity requesting the APIs is a partial competitor
to Microsoft. Under the PFI, Microsoft's ability to arbitrarily
withhold APIs from those that would deign to enter into competition
with Microsoft is left intact. Moreover, provision J of the Proposed
Final Judgment allows Microsot2 to withhold technical information if
it might ``compromise the security'' of authentication or
encryption systems. This provision would clearly implicate
information disclosed relevant to browser technology, since a
browser, by definition, encapsulates encryption software. The
Committee needs to understand that products either interoperate or
they don't. In order to interoperate effectively, third parties must
have all of the information, not some subset defined by Microsoft.
For example, in 1995, there was a debate between Microsoft and
Netscape about whose authentication and encryption software was
boxer. Netscape had developed and implemented SSL, and Microsoft had
implemented SMTP. Microsoft would have never distributed APIs at a
critical time in Netscape's development because they card have
claimed, if the PFJ had been in effect, those APIs would undermine
SMTP. Lastly, the PFJ fails to define the critical term
``interoperability.'' The PFJ leaves the term to be
defined by Microsoft.
The sum of the API provision will ensure that Microsoft will
continue to determine the flow of information to third party
developers. And any dispute- which may be favorably resolved by the
so-called ``Technical Committee,'' will never be conducted
inn timely manner.
B. Killing Browser Competition by Commingling Browser Code With Windows
and Calling it all ``Windows''.
Netscape distributed the first commercially successful browser.
Microsoft decided to distribute their browsers without charge. As
the litigation demonstrated, Microsoft decided by 1997 to bolt the
browser together with Windows because, as their testimony indicated,
they were losing the battle. Attachment
Litigation ensued. Microsoft denied that it had violated the law
in so doing, citing the language of the 1995 Consent Decree.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held in June, 1998, that under the
terms of the 1995 Consent Decree, Microsoft was entitled to bind
products together as long as there was a ``facially
plausible'' explanation for having done so. The Court pointedly
said at the time that this issue might have been decided differently
if it were a Sherman Act case rather than a Consent Decree case.
Nevertheless, Microsoft seized upon this Consent Decree opinion and
claimed that it could now bundle a ham sandwich as part of Windows
if they wanted.
Let me make one point clear: while I believe this was the wrong
result, I do not blame Microsoft for attempting to prevail on this
point-- The fault 1/es with the Department of Justice for
having written a poor agreement with Microsoft in the first place.
The agreement was flawed in that it contained language which was at
best ambiguous and, at worst, an avenue for Microsoft to flaunt the
decree.
The Sherman Act antitrust case against Microsoft was flied in
May, t998.'' The government alleged that Microsoft's practice
of Wing the browser and operating system together was illegal. In
June, 2001, the Court of Appeals this time said that Mascot's pro,
ice of ``commingling'' the browser and operating system
code together was illegal,
Question 2. How does the PFJ deal with the issue of binding
other software to Windows?
Answer. Remarkably, the PFJ adepts Microsoft's ham sandwich
armament. It contains a definition w kick says that Windows is
whatever Microsoft says it is. The net effect of this is whenever
any software is developed which could threaten Microsoft, Microsoft
can simply bolt a similar product into Windows and call it all one
product. Since this language is more favorable to Microsoft than
current law, it is an example of how Microsoft, the defendant in the
lawsuit, actually g ;a/ned affirmative exceptions from current law
through negotiations with the Department of Justice.
Once again, I don't blame .Microsoft for trying. They're
supposed to negotiate the best deal possible. It is the fault of the
Justice Department and the various states who agreed to this.
The PFJ not only would not have .protected Netscape from
Microsoft's predatory conduct. It actually would have provided less
protection than any of the legal standards that have existed the
past ten years.
C. Distribution and Retaliation.
The most important distribution channel in the software business
is the OEM channel. Microsoft controls that channel by virtue of
having the Windows monopoly. If Microsoft chooses not to distribute
Windows to a particular OEM in a timely manner, the OEM simply
cannot sell computers,
The OEM channel became the most important distribution channel
for Netscape as well. Microsoft used its market power to impede
Netscape's ability to distribute Attachment browsers. They said they
were going to ``choke off (our) air supply'' and they
began to execute on that strategy. OEMs who Wanted to feature
Netscape's browser were punished by Microsoft. The price of Windows
was increased, or the threat of canceling the Windows license was
made.
Question 3. How does the PFJ protect against retaliation by
Microsoft against an OEM or anybody else who would prefer to feature
or sell non-Microsoft software? Answer: The first thing that must be
taken into account is that there is nothing in this remedy which
will lead to more competition in the operating system .market, so
OEMs know that Microsoft's position is more secure as a monopolist
than ever before. That fact, juxtaposed with the permanent
cancellation threat Microsoft gained by this settlement, is intended
to and will freeze any OEM wishing to promote non-Microsoft
alternatives. Under dais agreement, Microsoft can terminate, without
notice, a PC companies Windows license, after sending the PC company
two notices that it believes it is violating its license. There need
not be any adjudication or determination by any independent tribunal
that Microsoft's claims are correct; only :we notices to any PC
company of a putative violation, and thereafter, Microsoft may
terminate without even giving notice.
This provision means that the PC companies are, at any time,
just two registered letters away from an unannounced economic
calamity. It will render the PC companies severely limited in their
willingness to promote products that compete with Microsoft Even
though Microsoft is an adjudged monopolist, it is constrained only
from certain . specified forms of retaliation, presumably empowering
it to engage in other forms of retaliation. This formulation is
particularly problematic because the protected PC company activities
are narrowly and specifically defined. Retaliation against a PC
company for installing a non-Microsoft application that does not
meet the middleware definition is NOT prohibited; nor is retaliation
against a PC company for removing a MSFT application that does not
meet the middleware definition.
[[Page 30251]]
Microsoft cart price Windows at a high price, and then put
economic pressure on the PC company to use only Microsoft
applications through the provision that Microsoft can provide
unlimited consideration to PC companies for distributing or
promoting Microsoft's services or products. The limitation that
these payments must be ``commensurate with the absolute level
or amount of'' PC company expenditures is hollow, since there
is no cost methodology proposed, and no mechanism to account for
costs in any event.
Under the settlement, Microsoft can provide unlimited
``market development allowances, programs, or other discounts
in connection with Windows Operating System Products.'' This
provision essentially eviscerates the entire scheme of PC company
choice, functioning the same way as the rebate provision discussed
above, but without any tether or limiting principle whatsoever.
Simply put, MSFT can charge. $150 per copy of Windows, but then
provide a $99 ``market development allowance'' for PC
companies that install Windows Media Player as opposed to Real
Networks media player.
Presumably, this is intend to be prescribed by a provision which
says that ``discounts or their award'' shall not be
``based on or impose any criterion or requirement that is
otherwise inconsistent with ... this Final Judgment,'' but this
circular and self-referential provision does not ensure that the
practice identified above is prohibited And Microsoft is free to
retaliate against PC companies that promote competition by
withholding any existing form of ``non-monetary
Compensation''--only ``newly introduced forms of non-
monetary Consideration'' may not be withheld Nora that the Wall
Street article of December by John Wiike, which discussed why
computer makers would not testify before the Senate Judiciary,
Committee: ``None of the computer makers that are supposed to
be the chief beneficiaries of the Justice Department settlement
agreed to testify. Two major computer makers said in interviews that
the proposed settlement's ant retaliation provisions are so weak
that they were unlikely to take advantage of its other provisions
allowing PC makers to use rival technologies. The government
settlement `leaves Microsoft as the gatekeeper of innovation
in the industry,'' an executive of one PC maker said last week.
Remember that we are talking about the remedy in antitrust case
where the monopolist has been found to have violated the law in
spades. Ask yourselves how- it is possible that in this remedy
Microsoft secured for itself the fight to retaliate against anybody.
Allowing consumers to exercise real software choice. We believed at
Netscape that as long as consumers could exercise real browser
choice, Netscape could compete with Microsoft. We even said we could
``compete with free''. That is, a scenario where our
customers paid for browsers and Microsoft gave its browser away for
free.
We ultimately were unable to compete with a free product that
was bolted to the operating system for anticompetitive reasons.
Question 4. Does the PFJ empower the consumer to make choices
about what software to use, and if so, does it require Microsoft to
respect those choices in the future? Two of the key provisions of
the PFJ cited by DOJ as instrumental in restoring competition merely
require Microsoft continue to .engage in business as usual. First,
DOJ points to the provision that allows PC companies and end users
to remove ``end user access'' to Microsoft middleware
(i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger,
etc). It is important to understand that all ``end user
access'' really means is the ability to remove the
``icon'' for the middleware application, not the
middleware itself. Second, DOJ ``grants'' the PC companies
``flexibility'' to add or remove icons on the Windows
desktop.
We have been down this road before. OEMs will not exercise
choice to merely remove or add icons because that is not a
meaningful choice. PC companies have always enjoyed the flexibility
to add icons to the Windows desktop. Microsoft specifically
announced in July that OEMs could remove Internet Explorer icons
from the desktop. And Microsoft bad previously been ordered by the
Court to display such flexibility in 1998. Until the fundamental
relationship between Microsoft and the CEMs changes, no OEM will
avail themselves of this cosmetic flexibility.
Astonishingly, Microsoft actually seared for itself in the PFJ a
provision that allows Microsoft to exploit its ``desktop
sweeper'' to eliminate PC company installed .icons by asking an
end user if he she warns the PC company-installed configuration
wiped out after 14 days. Thus, rite PC company flexibility
provisions will only last on the desktop with certainty for 14 days,
and after that period, persistent automated queries from Microsoft
can reverse the effect of the PC company's installations. The
effect of this provision is to severely devalue the ability of PC
companies to offer premier desktop space to ISVs--and to
undermine the ability of PC companies t differentiate their products
and provide consumes with real choices.
So, under this remedy, Microsoft gets to undermine the choices
made by PC companies and grants Microsoft a second, third, and
truly, infinite bites at the apple, to badger consumes
into--unknowingly or unwittingly--switching back to
Microsoft's software. The add remove provisions in the agreement
only allow for removal of end user access to Microsoft .middleware,
not the middleware itself. For example, a PC company or a consumer
might choose to eliminate Microsoft's Internet Explorer and replace
it with Netscape's Navigator as the default. Under this provision,
Microsoft's Internet Explorer - not Netscape's Navigator--is
still used in the MyDocuments, MyMusic, MyPictures and Windows
Explorer folders. So Microsoft has secured an agreement that insures
that Internet Explorer is used even when a consumer has chosen
otherwise. And as stated above, Microsoft has secured in this
agreement insurance Sat its browser and other middleware remains on
PCs, even if the icon is removed. That will have the effect of
guaranteeing that applications writers would not write to Netscape's
browser.
As we have seen with the implementation of this approach (i.e.,
icon removal only) with regard to Internet Explorer in Windows XP,
MSFT can use the presentation, of this option in the utility to make
it less desirable to end users. And remarkable, the agreement gives
Microsoft a new weapon to use in its war to preserve the desktop as
its own can demand that PC companies include icons for non-MSFT
middleware in the add/remove utility.
Ask yourself this: we are talking about a remedy that flows from
a case where Microsoft has brazenly violated antitrust laws. Why in
the world should Microsoft be able to secure for itself in this
remedy a provision that allows consumers to remove non-Microsoft
software? This treats the other companies as if they broke the law,
not Microsoft.
CONCLUSION: These are just a few of the provisions that would
have affected Netscape or a similar company attempting to have a
successful browser business. As stated above, it is my belief that
if these provisions had been in effect, it is highly unlikely
Netscape would have ever been founded.
If these provisions are allowed to go into effect, no entity
will be able to secure venture capital financing to compete against
Microsoft in any aspect of its business.
Policymakers must understand the consequences of this proposed
action, I regret not being able to share my views directly with the
Senate Judiciary Committee, but trust that you will do the necessary
due diligence before this badly flawed agreement goes forward in the
courts. The policy signal that will be sent if this agreement is
finalized is that particularly determined monopolists will be
rewarded for their intransigence. Is that really the competition
policy of this country?
WILLIAM H. SORRELL
ATTORNEY GENEILAI
J. WALLACE MALLEY, JR.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHIEF ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
109 STATE STREET
MONTPELIER
05609-1001
TEL: (802) 828-3171
FAX: (802) 828--2154
TTY: (802) 828-3665
CIVIL RICHTS: (802) 828-3657
http://www:state.vt.us/org
September 20, 2001
Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 9.8052-6399
Fax No. 425-936-7329
Dear Mr. Ballmer:
In 1998, the Department of Justice and a significant number of
state attorneys general filed a lawsuit alleging that Microsoft had
monopoly power in the operating system market and that the company
had engaged in illegal predatory practices to maintain this
monopoly. Our states are not parties to the pending litigation.
However, We have a continuing interest in issues relevant to the
litigation.
Today we write to you to express our support for concerns raised
by the states and
[[Page 30252]]
the Department of Justice in the litigation. We add our voices to
those calling on Microsoft to remedy the antitrust problems that are
now evident. We take this action for three reasons.
First, as a result of the trial record, we now have the ability
to review a complete record of evidence concerning Microsoft's
activities over the past several years to maintain its monopoly in
the operating system market. Second, the district court's finding 6f
monopoly maintenance was confirmed unanimously by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Finally,
given our understanding of Microsoft's new Windows XP operating
system, which is about to be released, we are concerned that aspects
of this new product may lead to further erosion of competition in
various software markets.
We are concerned that Windows XP may involve additional unlawful
attempts by Microsoft to maintain its operating system monopoly.
Notwithstanding the notable technological. achievements imbedded
into some of the products and services offered by Windows XP,
Microsoft may have c0nstrueted this new product without due regard
for relevant legal rulings,'' and without due regard for other:
issues involving consumer choice and consumer privacy.
Steven A. Ballmer
Moreover, there are many state governmental agencies currently
using existing versions of Windows, and there are significant
expressions of concern that Microsoft will be in a position to
withdraw support for products currently in use in favor of Windows
XP.
We agree with our colleagues, the litigating states and the
federal government, that any anti-competitive aspects of Windows XP
should be addressed. As the Court of Appeals succinctly stated, the
remedy must, to the extent possible, ``unfetter [the] market
from anticompetitive conduct, ... and ensure that there remain no
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future.''
We therefore are supportive of efforts of the litigating states and
the Department of Justice to incorporate Windows XP into the remedy
phase of the remanded Case.
Sincerely,
William H. Sorrell
Vermont Attorney General
On behalf of himself and:
Mark Pryor
Arkansas Attorney General
G. Steven Rowe
Maine Attorney General
Mike McGrath
Montana Attorney General
Phillip McLaughlin
New Hampshire Attorney General
Sheldon Whitehouse
Rhode Island Attorney General
Written Questions for Charles A. James
Chairman Patrick Leahy
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
December 20, 2001
1. Jim Barksdale, the former CEO of Netscape, tells us in a
written submission that if the proposed settlement had governed
Microsoft's behavior ten years ago, he would never have been able to
obtain the venture capital to launch Netscape and, even flit did,
Microsoft would have been able to crush the company. It is harsh
criticism of the proposed settlement that it would have made no
difference and that it would allow Microsoft to engage in the same
exclusionary practices that extinguished Netscape and crippled Java.
Do you think that this criticism is fair and, if not, why?
2. The remedy filed by the non-settling States would require
that the agreement be enforced by a court-appointed special master
with the authority to monitor Microsoft's complaints, and with the
power to investigate, call witnesses, and conduct hearings if the
company appears to have violated the agreement. Your proposed
settlement provides for a three- member panel paid for by Microsoft
that can listen to and investigate complaints, but which lacks the
independent authority to convene hearings and examine witnesses.
This panel must turn to the Justice Department for any such
activity, and its members may not offer testimony themselves in any
proceeding. Although the three member panel might be helpful in
gathering some information, in terms of actual enforcement, the
Justice Department will have to start from scratch with any action.
In light of the fact that everyone agrees that this is a rapidly-
moving industry, the inherent delays in such a process seem more
likely to hamper than to enhance Microsoft's compliance with the
decree. Why did you decide to create this unique and limited panel,
rather than a more traditional special master?
3. The Court of Appeals specifically held--twice--that
commingling the browser and operating system code violated section 2
of the Sherman Act. Yet, the proposed settlement contains no
prohibition on commingling code. In your testimony before the
Committee, you explained that the Department had never taken the
position that Microsoft should be required to remove code from the
operating system, and that the proposed settlement is thus
consistent with a long-standing position of the Department. That
explanation appears to neglects two things: First, the settlement is
forward-looking, and second, the court's determination that
commingling code was an exclusionary act. Taken together, these
facts suggest that a ban on future exclusionary commingling of code
is entirely consistent with the Department's position, would provide
appropriate relief for the violation found, and would help prevent
its recurrence. Do you agree that such a ban on future exclusionary
commingling would comport with the Court of Appeals decision? Did
you consider such a ban? Do you agree that such a ban on future
exclusionary commingling would be would provide appropriate relief
for the violation found, and would help prevent its recurrence?
4. There has never been a Tunney Act proceeding after litigation
through the court of appeals before. In the first Microsoft-
Department of Justice Tunney Act proceeding in 1994, the court
suggested that great deference should be given to the appellate
court's findings. Do you believe that the Court of Appeals''
decision provides useful input to the definition of ``public
interest'' in this unique context?
5. As I mentioned at the Committee's hearing, in describing your
settlement, Fortune magazine said: ``Even the loopholes have
loopholes.'' The settlement limits the types of retaliation
Microsoft may take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or
promote non-Microsoft software. By implication the settlement
appears to give a green light to other types of retaliation. You
responded to my question about retaliation by saying that the
settlement would permit collaboration generally approved in the
antitrust case law. Please clarify the Department's position a
little further:
(a) Why does the settlement not ban all types of retaliation?
(b) The settlement requires Microsoft to treat PC manufacturers
the same in some respects but in other important respects Microsoft
is allowed to treat PC manufacturers differently. What are the ways
in which Microsoft can treat differently PC manufacturers that carry
competing software compared to those that agree to carry Microsoft
products exclusively?
(c) You referred at the hearing to the fact that the settlement
would permit certain collaborative conduct between Microsoft and
others. Please explain in detail what types of collaboration are
permitted by the decree, and what types are forbidden.
(d) Among the exceptions in the proposed settlement to the bans
on retaliation, Microsoft is permitted to provide
``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.''
This seems to permit Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they
can-y Microsoft's products or software; this is just the flip side
of ``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?
6. In 1995 the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and
scope of this proposed Final Judgment before it is entered?
Written Questions for Jay Himes
Chairman Patrick Leahy
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
December 20, 2001
1. A number of states are still litigating this case against
Microsoft, and have submitted a remedy proposal to the district
court. That proposal is stronger in significant respects than your
proposed settlement. For example, they propose a court-appointed
special master with the authority to gather evidence and conduct
hearings as part of the enforcement mechanism.
[[Page 30253]]
(a) Do you believe that the more stringent provisions sought by
the litigating states are not in the public interest?
(b) Did you consider restrictions similar to those sought by the
non-settling parties or did you think that Microsoft would not agree
to them?
2. The Com1 of Appeals found that Microsoft's deception of Java
developers and ``pollution of the Java standard''
constituted exclusionary practices in violation of Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, and eliminated its competitive presence in the desktop
realm. Unlike Navigator, Java may still be a viable competitive
force, in other arenas. What provision, if any, in the settlement
agreement prohibits Microsoft from repeating such an act?
3. As I understand the proposed settlement, Microsoft need only
disclose APIs and documentation to middleware developers when
Microsoft itself has a competing product. Some critics say this
would allow Microsoft to determine the pace of innovation on the
desktop by simply deciding not to develop or market competing
products until it is ready with its own product--or until it
has swallowed up a likely competitor. Allowing Microsoft, in
essence, to determine the pace of desktop innovation would not aid
the software industry generally, and not benefit consumers. How do
you respond to this criticism?
4. A loophole seems to be created by the exception to the
requirement of APIs and documentation disclosure. Microsoft is
supposed to disclose APIs, documentation, and communications
protocols to permit interoperability of middleware and servers with
Windows operating systems. But Microsoft does not need to disclose
such information if it would, in Microsoft's opinion, compromise the
security of various systems, which are very broadly defined. What do
you say to the critics who fear that this loophole may swallow the
API disclosure requirement?
5. The non-settling states'' proposed remedy requires
Microsoft to release technical information necessary for middleware
to be able to interoperate with Windows as soon as Microsoft gives
its own developers that information. The proposed settlement only.
Requires such disclosure when Microsoft puts out a major test
version of a new Windows release. Presumably promotion of
competition is the animating idea behind this provision, so why did
you not insist that other non-Microsoft developers have this
information at the same time Microsoft developers did?
6. In 1995 the Department of Justice and Microsoft entered into
a Consent Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for
contempt of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed
over the meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of
the Decree, including the meaning of the word
``integrate'' as that term was used in the Decree. Given
the prior litigation between the Department and Microsoft over the
proper interpretation of the 1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that
Microsoft and the settling plaintiffs should have a common, explicit
understanding of the meaning and scope of this proposed Final
Judgment before it is entered?
7. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed Final
Judgment as agreed upon by the settling plaintiffs and Microsoft
should be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the
public at large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding
of the Judgment?
8. If Microsoft were to disagree with the settling
plaintiffs'' interpretation of one or more important provisions
of the proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a
potentially serious problem?
9. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the settling
plaintiffs over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final
Judgment now, before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather
than through protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995
Consent Decree?
10. Does the Competitive Impact Statement set forth the settling
plaintiffs'' definitive interpretation of its proposed Final
Judgment with Microsoft?
11. Has Microsoft informed the settling plaintiffs that it has
any disagreement with the interpretation of the Final Judgment as
set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
12. Can the public at large rely upon the Competitive Impact
Statement as the definitive interpretation of the nature and scope
of Microsoft's obligations under the Final Judgment?
13. If the public cannot rely on the interpretation of the
proposed Final Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact
Statement, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-upon
interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's obligations
under the Final Judgment?
1. In your 1997 testimony on the first Microsoft-Department of
Justice consent decree, you said that ``it seems a bit
shortsighted (or perhaps even hysterical) to believe that Microsoft
is such a juggernaut that putting extra sand in its saddle bags is
justified to even up the odds for the competition.'' In light
of the fact that the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, abusing its operating system monopoly
to the detriment of consumers, do you still believe that it is
``hysterical'' to inquire into, and seek to end, the
company's anticompetitive practices?
2. The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the district
court ``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 such proposal, except that any such
communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attome3,
General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone shall be
excluded from the requirements of this subsection.'' You have
recently been named as counsel of record; do you believe that this
provision requires disclosure of communications by you to the
Justice Department prior to the date upon which you became counsel
of record? Do you believe it requires disclosure of contacts made on
behalf of Microsoft to members of Congress? How do you define
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Do
you believe that it covers anything more than the actual
negotiations of the decree?
3. Microsoft's retaliation against OEMs that resisted carrying
Microsoft's products featured largely in the evidence at trial, and
the proposed settlement seems to address the Court of Appeals''
holding that such retaliation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
While the settlement does state that Microsoft cannot retaliate
against an OEM that is supposing a competing operating system or
middleware, there is also a ``carve-out'' to that
restriction, which permits Microsoft to provide ``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.'' This seems to permit
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry Microsoft's
products or software; this is just the flip side of
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?
4. Microsoft is given 12 months to come into compliance with
this proposed settlement; what tasks must it actually undertake that
will require so much time?
5. The proposed settlement agreement provides that Microsoft's
disclosure of APIs and documentation for an updated version of
Windows in a ``timely manner'', and ``timely
manner'' seems to be defined as the time at which Microsoft
makes the new Windows version available to 150,000 or more beta
testers. Does Microsoft routinely send beta test versions to so many
testers? When has it done so in the past? Can't Microsoft avoid the
disclose provision by simply limiting the number of beta testers?
6. If a PC manufacturer decides that it would like to remove
Windows Moviemaker, is that action protected from the ban on
retaliation in the proposed settlement? If a representative of a PC
manufacturer or a software developer testified before this Committee
or before the district court in the on-going states'' case,
would the settlement ban retaliation against them?
7. Software developers that take advantage of the middleware API
disclosure are required by the proposed settlement to cross-license
their products back to Microsoft. Presumably this is of great
benefit to Microsoft, but how does it fit into remedying the
antitrust violations found in court?
8. The provision of the proposed statement addressing the
availability of server communications protocols refers to protocols
that are ``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.'' I am
confused about the meaning of ``natively,'' and the
Competitive Impact Statement does not clarify it. As the issue of
Microsoft's possible abuses in the server arena are even now before
the European Union's antitrust enforcement branch, I am interested
to know precisely what your
[[Page 30254]]
proposal accomplishes, and whether it addresses the EU's concerns as
well.
9. The proposed settlement's prohibition on retaliation against
software developers creates an exception from that prohibition for
agreements that ``are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable
scope and duration'' in connection with obliging a developer to
use, distribute, promote, or develop software for Microsoft. What do
you envision that exception to cover, and more importantly, what
does it leave within the ban against retaliation?
10. The proposed settlement permits the removal of the Internet
Explorer icon, but as I understand it, even if a user chooses to
remove Internet Explorer, IE will continue to pop up in MyDocuments,
MyMusic, and MyPictures. Is this understanding correct, and if so,
how can a User ever be free of Internet Explorer?
11. In 1995 the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and
scope of this proposed Final Judgment before it is entered?
12. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed
Final Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should
be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the
Judgment?
13. If Microsoft and the Department were to disagree about the
correct interpretation of one or more important provisions of the
proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially
serious problem?
14. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department
over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now,
before the Judgment is entered by the Com-t, rather than through
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?
15. Can the public at large rely upon the Department's
Competitive Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the
nature and scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final
Judgment? If not, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-
upon interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's
obligations under the Final Judgment?
16. Does the Competitive Impact Statement accurately reflect
Microsoft's interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment?
17. Recognizing that the Department's Competitive Impact
Statement cannot address every conceivable issue that may arise in
the future concerning the proposed Final Judgment, is there anything
stated in the Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft
disagrees?
18. Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
19. Does Microsoft disagree with anything stated in the
Department's Competitive Impact Statement concerning the meaning and
scope of the proposed Final Judgment?
20. Will you commit on behalf of Microsoft to inform this
Committee in writing of each and every statement in the Department's
Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft disagrees? Will
you commit to do so within the next 15 days so that the public can
understand what disagreements Microsoft has with the Competitive
Impact Statement before the Tunney Act comment period expires?
21. Was there anything in Assistant Attorney General
James'' testimony before this
22. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page
38 that: ``if a Windows Operating System Product is using all
the Communications Protocols that it contains to communicate with
two servers, one of which is a Microsoft server and one of which is
a competing server that has licensed and fully implemented all the
Communications Protocols, the Windows Operating System Product
should behave identically in its interaction with both the Microsoft
and non-Microsoft servers.'' Does Microsoft agree that this
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under
section III(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?
23. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page
36 that: ``Section III.E. will prevent Microsoft from
incorporating into its Windows Operating System Products features or
functionality with which its own server software can interoperate,
and then refusing to make available information about those features
that non-Microsoft servers need in order to have the same
opportunities to interoperate with the Windows Operating System
Product.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately states one
objective of Microsoft's obligations under section III(E) of the
proposed Final Judgment?
25. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page
37-38 that: ``Because the Communications Protocols must
be licensed `for use'' by such third parties, the
licensing necessarily must be accompanied by sufficient disclosure
to allow licensees fully to utilize all the functionality of each
Communications Protocol.'' Does Microsoft agree that this
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations
under section III(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?
Questions for Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James
1. One of the principal concerns voiced by critics of the
Proposed Settlement is that it lacks an effective enforcement
mechanism. These critics suggest that some type of fast-track
enforcement mechanism, such as the appointment of a special master,
is necessary to ensure compliance. Could you please explain: First,
why you believe the enforcement avenues provided for by the Proposed
Settlement are sufficient; and, Second, how you envision effective
enforcement actually being carried out in the real world?
2. Because the three-person Technical Counsel created by the
Proposed Settlement has no enforcement powers, won't the level of
enforcement of the Proposed Settlement depend principally on how
proactive the Department and State Attorneys General are in
dedicating resources and attention to prompt and effective oversight
and enforcement? What resources does the Department plan on
committing to enforcement of the Proposed Settlement?
3. In my opening statement, I raised the issue of prompt and
effective enforcement in high-technology markets. As the DC Circuit
clearly recognized, the passage of time frequently overtakes alleged
anticompetitive actions, making them--in the DC Circuit's
language--``obsolete'' before a remedy is devised and
implemented. In your view, what can be done to minimize this problem
and ensure that antitrust remedies are developed early enough to
provide meaningful relief?.
4. Could you explain the pros and cons of having the enforcement
function performed by governmental agencies as opposed to a special
master or adjudicatory panel of some type?
5. Could you also explain why you oppose--assuming that you
do oppose--an alternate or additional enforcement mechanism?
6. As you know, I believe that one important aspect of the
Internet is the freedom that consumers have to choose where to go
and what websites to visit. Currently, consumers can choose to go to
whatever websites they want. Commentators and industry participants
argue that there is a legitimate fear that an Internet mediator
might--for one reason or another--decide to limit access
to certain sites while traffic is directed to other sites, or decide
that certain sites will be treated differently than other sites in
ways that push consumers in the direction of favored sites instead
of leaving the choice entirely and fairly to consumers. Who do you
believe should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer
or the Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a
software company, or a cable or satellite company? Also, could you
please explain whether and why you believe this is an important
competition policy concern?
7. Some critics claim that the only real penalty Microsoft faces
for violating the Proposed Settlement is the extension of the terms
of the Settlement for two additional years. Is that an accurate
criticism; and, if not, could you please briefly explain the
penalties faced by Microsoft if it fails to abide by the Proposed
Settlement?
8. Could you please expand on why you believe the Department has
sufficient expertise to accurately evaluate the competitive
implications of software design and other technical development
choices? Additionally, specifically what has the Department done to
ensure that it has the expertise necessary to assess at an early
stage both the lawfulness and potential anticompetitive effects of
highly-technical actions taken by companies such as
[[Page 30255]]
Microsoft? Does the Department have a specific plan for allocating
resources or personnel to develop the necessary expertise to
identify and take effective action while potential antitrust
problems are still on the horizon?
9. In his written testimony (pp. 18-19), Mr. Himes of the
New York State Attorney General's Office briefly discusses the
importance of the Proposed Settlement's definition of
``Middleware.'' The DC Circuit defined middleware very
simply as ``software products that expose their own APIs [or
`Application Programming Interfaces'].'' Microsoft,
253 F.3d at 53. Could you explain why the Proposed Settlement adopts
a narrower, two-prong definition? Could you also further explain the
distribution threshold contained in the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products,'' requiring that--to meet
the definition--at least one million copies of the Middleware
Product have been distributed within the United States during the
previous year? Will this threshold provision disadvantage innovation
among start-up entrepreneurs or those who develop software for
highly-specialized markets as some have criticized? Is there some
other way to address the concerns underlying this ``one million
copy'' threshold?
10. I found Mr. Jim Barksdale's letter noteworthy in several
respects, but am particularly interested in his claim that the
Proposed Settlement would not have prevented Microsoft's unlawful
actions against Netscape. Could you please discuss whether the
Proposed Settlement would have prevented the actions taken by
Microsoft against Netscape that the DC Circuit held to be unlawful
had the Proposed Settlement been in existence in 1995, and, if so,
how?
Questions for Jay Himes
1. I realize that you support the Proposed Settlement on the
basis that it compares favorably to the set of remedies that many
predict would have resulted from further litigation. However,
setting that aside for the moment, could you tell us what particular
merit-if any-you see in the Remedial Proposals filed by the non-
settling states?
2. Please expand specifically on the pros and cons of the
various proposals for alternative enforcement mechanisms that were
considered and rejected in the settlement discussions. In particular
could you give us your view of the provision, contained in the non-
settling parties'' Remedial Proposal, that would provide for a
special master?
3. Please explain, from the perspectives of the settling State
plaintiffs, whether and how the Proposed Settlement sufficiently
protects against Microsoft leveraging its monopoly power in
operating systems into the Internet-based services market and the
server market?
Questions for Charles F. ``Rick'' Rule
1. Concerns have been voiced about potential
``loopholes'' that might be created by ambiguities in
various definitions that are fundamental to determining Microsoft's
responsibilities under the settlement. Do you agree that the
``Competitive Impact Statement'' accurately memorializes
the spirit and underlying considerations of the Proposed Settlement
agreement; and do you further agree that it should be used as an
authoritative interpretive guide in settling disputes about the
practical application of the Proposed Settlement?
2. Could you please identify the specific aspects of the
Competitive Impact Statement that you believe do not accurately
represent Microsoft's understanding of the Proposed Settlement?
grad, to the extent you believe that the Competitive Impact
Statement is inaccurate, would Microsoft be willing to provide a
detailed description of these perceived inaccuracies along with
specific language describing Microsoft's understanding of the issue,
language, or provision, the accuracy of which Microsoft disputes?
3. In your written testimony (p. 9) you briefly address the
Proposed Settlement's prohibition of retaliation by Microsoft
against computer makers. You summarize the provision in the
settlement stating that ``Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate
against computer makers who ship software that competes with
anything in [Microsoft's] Windows operating system.'' Id.
Concerns, however, have been raised regarding perceived limitations
on this anti-retaliation provision. Could you explain either why the
perceived caveats were included in the anti-retaliation provision as
well as why you believe that these perceived caveats do not actually
allow Microsoft to engage in substantial retaliation against
computer makers?
4. Is it your position that the anti-retaliation provision does
in fact prohibit Microsoft from all forms of retaliation against
computer software makers that choose to ship software that competes
with Microsoft products; and, if not, how do you answer the
criticisms that the provision is insufficient to effectively prevent
retaliation?
5. Several media sources and commentators have reported that
major computer makers--or ``OEMs''--such as
Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway, are heavily dependent on
Microsoft, which--some have argued--may explain the lack
of vocal opposition by these companies to the Proposed Settlement.
With this in mind, how can the Proposed Settlement's substantial
reliance on these companies to incorporate software that competes
with Microsoft products on the computers they distribute be trusted
to result in actual competition in the middleware market?
6. Could you please explain, in detail, what incentives you
believe will actually lead OEMs to install software that competes
against Microsoft software? Are you aware of particular competing
software that OEMs might currently wish to install in favor of
similar Microsoft products?
7. With respect to concerns raised regarding the lack of a
strong enforcement mechanism in the Proposed Settlement, could you
please expand upon the reasons that you believe the Proposed
Settlement ensures effective enforcement? Could you also explain
your view of how enforcement will occur? Finally, could you explain
why- assuming that this is 3'our position--the proposed
alternative enforcement mechanisms are either unnecessary,
undesirable, or both?
Questions for Professor Lawrence Lessig
1. In your book, you make the case for keeping the Internet
``neutral and open.'' Could you briefly describe the
danger that you foresee, in both a competition and a larger policy
context, as consumers mi=m-ate to higher capacity connections from
our current narrowband connections?
2. One concern I have consistently raised elsewhere, including
in merger and monopolization contexts, has been possible limitations
being placed on consumer freedom by an access provider, whether an
Internet service provider, a cable company, a satellite company, or
another Internet access facilitator. If there is a legitimate fear
that an Internet mediator might--for one reason or
another--decide to limit access to certain sites or drive
traffic to other specified sites? If so, what do you believe to be
the best method of safeguarding and preserving the freedom of the
Internet?
3. As you know, on the Internet, anyone can self-publish their
music, their artwork, their writings, and those who are interested
in those works can have access to them, and neither the creator nor
the consumer necessarily need the mediation of a publisher. Works
that are important to a few, but cannot make it in a traditional
publishing context, have a place for their fans on the Internet. I
have said elsewhere that it would be a great shame if the wide-open
access available on the Internet were narrowed down in the way the
offline world often is. Could you please explain who you believe
should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer or the
Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a software
company, or a cable or satellite company, and could you explain why
this is an important question?
Questions for All Witnesses on Panel III
1. Both commentators and several witnesses (in their written
testimony) defend the Proposed Settlement by arguing that its terms
are as good as--or even better than--what would have been
obtained through further litigation. Several have also pointed out
that it would take at least two more years to get a remedy in place
by means of litigation. Could you please explain whether and why you
believe that further settlement negotiations or litigation would be
in the public interest?
2. In light of the number of claims from the original complaint
that the DC Circuit found to lack merit, is it reasonable to believe
that any judgement resulting from further litigation would be
significantly better that the Proposed Settlement?
3. At the hearing, I emphasized the need for prompt antitrust
enforcement in quickly-evolving markets. Could you please explain
whether and why you believe that the benefits of having an imperfect
settlement now are outweighed by those of having a possibly better
settlement at some point in the future?
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KOHL
Panel I--Charles James
[[Page 30256]]
1. Mr. James, a unanimous Court of Appeals held that Microsoft
has violated our antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its
monopoly. It seems pretty common sense that if we want to fix that
violation, the settlement you are advocating should: (1) end the
unlawful conduct; (2) avoid a recurrence of the violation; and (3)
and undo the anticompetitive consequences of the illegal behavior.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that we should ``den to the
defendant the fruits'' of its illegal conduct. As you know,
when this case was first filed, one of the main problems was that
Microsoft's illegal conduct had nearly driven a competing maker of
Internet browsing software--Netscape Navigator--out of
business. But today, Microsoft has a greater than 85% share of
browsing software. And Netscape is no longer in business as an
independent company and no longer is a serious threat as a competing
platform.
So I have the following questions: how does this proposed
settlement proposal in any way deny Microsoft the gains resulting
from its illegal, anti-competitive conduct? Does it do anything, for
example, to undo Microsoft's victory in the ``browser
wars''?
2. Five years from now do you think it is likely that Microsoft
will still have 95% of the operating system market? If so, should
this concern us?
3. We are right now in the middle of the holiday shopping
season, and millions of Americans are going to the computer stores
to buy new computers. When they reach the store, they have a choice
of many different machines made by many different computer
manufacturers, such as Compaq, Dell, Gateway, IBM, and HP, to name a
few. But when it comes to the software that operates the machine
they face a very different picture. With the exception of the
machines sold by Apple, the consumer has no choice but to buy a
computer pre-loaded with Microsoft's Windows operating system.
Is there anything in the proposed settlement agreement likely to
change this picture? Why can't consumers have the same competitive
choices in computer software--specifically operating system
software--as they have today with respect to deciding which
machine to buy?
4. Critics of the proposed settlement claim it is full of
loopholes, and that these loopholes will make it easy for Microsoft
to evade its terms. I'd like to focus on one thing critics argue is
an unnecessary loophole. The settlement contains an important
provision that lets computer makers load certain types of non-
Microsoft software on their machines without any fear of retaliation
from Microsoft. But Microsoft can retaliate in some instances. For
example, only competing software that distributed at least one
million copies in the United States in the last year receives
protection. No such protection is imposed upon competing software
which has distributed less than one million copies.
Commenting on this provision in the Washington Post, James
Barksdale, the founder of Netscape, wrote ``Anyone who
understands the [computer] industry knows this is no protection, for
the new inventor will always be steam-rolled by the powerful
Microsoft. The dreamers and tinkerers whose better mousetrap has not
yet been proved should just close shop. The ultimate losers are the
potential consumers of these lost ideas.''
(a) Why is this limitation found in the settlement? Won't it be
difficult for software that has not yet been widely distributed to
gain a competitive foothold if Microsoft is not required to allow
computer users and manufacturers access to it on the desktop? And
why isn't Mr. Barksdale right--aren't consumers the losers if
Microsoft is permitted to deny such small, start- up software
manufacturers access to the computer desktop?
(b) Please give specific examples of ``non-Microsoft
middleware products'' (as defined in the proposed consent
decree, section VI.N) that have distributed at least one million
copies in the United States in the past year, and examples of those
that have not.
(c) What types of research and/or objective methods are used to
measure such distribution today? Which studies or objective criteria
did you use to set the one million dollar mark?
5. In the proposed consent decree, with respect to current
products, the definition of Microsoft Middleware Product is locked
into specific products (section VI.K.1 of the Proposed Final
Judgment). Where it is prospective, the definition of Microsoft
Middleware Product allows Microsoft to avoid its reach if it does
not satisfy all of the elements of the definition (found in section
VI.K.2).
(a) Why do you believe this definition is sufficient to restore
competition in the middleware market?
(b) Why is the definition of middleware in the proposed consent
decree different from the one used by the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals, or the one used by Judge Jackson in his interim remedy?
(c) Why is MSN Explorer excluded from the current products that
constitute Microsoft Middleware Products in section VI.K.1 of the
Proposed Final Judgment?
6. Many believe Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly
to gain dominance in other types of software products. For example,
five years ago, Microsoft had only about a 20% market share in
Internet browsing software. Today it has an 86% share. Five years
ago, Microsoft had 43% share in word processing software. Today
Microsoft Word software has a 94% market share.
What provisions in the settlement will prevent Microsoft from
gaining dominant market shares in new software products, just as it
has with respect to other types of software?
7(a). Mr. James, if this settlement is adequate to restore
competition and remedy Microsoft's illegal conduct, why have nine
state attorneys general who initially joined the Justice Department
in suing Microsoft refused to sign on to the settlement but have
instead proposed their own settlement?
(b) Are you willing to consider modifications to the proposed
settlement in order to secure the consent of additional state
attorneys general? If so, what modifications would you consider?
8. The proposed consent decree lasts for only five years (unless
a Court finds Microsoft has engaged in systematic violations of the
decree, in which case it is extended for another two years).
(a) Can you inform me in which past monopoly cases brought by
the government where a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has
been found, the federal courts have limited their conduct remedies
against the monopolist to only five years?
(b) Why have you limited the remedy to five years in this case?
How can we be sure that the five year term of the settlement is
sufficient to restore competition to this market?
(c) Why do the restraints on Microsoft's conduct in some
instances take as long as one year to go into effect?
(d) How likely do you think software developers will be to
develop new products based on a decree that will protect them for
only five years?
(e) Will you commit initiating new investigations and, if
necessary, new court proceedings, if Microsoft behaves in an anti-
competitive manner in the future?
Panel II
For Rick Rule
1. Mr. Rule, in the past your client Microsoft has been adamant
in denying it was a monopolist--despite its 95% share of
computer operating systems--and that it in any way violated the
antitrust laws. Now, the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals has
ruled that Microsoft indeed is a monopolist and indeed acted
illegally to maintain its monopoly. Will this ruling--and
Microsoft's experience in this litigation--in any way chasten
Microsoft into behaving more responsibly? Is Microsoft now willing
to recognize that it is a monopolist and, as a result, has
obligations to deal with competing businesses in a way that would
not exist if did not have monopoly power in its business?
2. Please identify for us five specific ways in which the
proposed settlement, once it is in force, will compel Microsoft to
change its business practices in a manner which will benefit
consumers.
3. The proposed consent decree contains prohibitions on
Microsoft retaliating against computer makers who choose to install
in their machine software products that compete with software made
by Microsoft. But many wonder if Microsoft will be able to offer
financial incentives to accomplish essentially the same thing. For
example, could Microsoft offer to pay incentive amounts to computer
makers who feature or promote Microsoft software on their machines?
4. One important issue the settlement was intended to address
was Microsoft's ability to penalize computer makers that load non-
Microsoft software onto their machines. Under the settlement, can
Microsoft still bar a computer maker from putting WordPerfect word
processing software or Quicken financial software pre-installed on
their machine? If so, why isn't Microsoft's ability to place such
restrictions on computer makers a problem for competition?
For Jay Himes
Mr. Himes, as you know, nine of your fellow states that
originally joined you and
[[Page 30257]]
the federal government in suing Microsoft have refused to consent to
this settlement, and, just last Friday, proposed additional
remedies. Why did these other states split ranks with you and the
federal government? Would you be willing to consider modifications
to this proposed settlement in order to gain their assent?
Panel III
For Lawrence Lessig
1. Professor Lessig, do you believe this settlement is adequate
to restore competition in the computer software industry.'? Why or
why not?
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
(b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
For Mark Cooper
1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
(b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
For Michael Szulik
1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
(b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
4. Mr. Szulik, your company, Red Hat, makes a competing
operating system, Linux. Will this settlement make it easier for you
to compete with Microsoft? If so, how?
For Mitchell Kertzman
1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
(b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation? Won't this
provision make it difficult for small or start-up software
manufacturers that make software that competes with Microsoft's
products to gain access to the computer desktop?
For Jonathan Zuck
1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
(b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
4. Mr. Zuck, your organization, which is one of several trade
associations representing smaller software manufacturers, has been
generally supportive of this settlement, while other competitive
software manufacturers have been very critical. Why doesn't your
organization share the concerns of many other smaller software
manufacturers?
5. Explain the principal ways this settlement will bring more
competition to the software market.
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To The Future''
Senator DeWine
Questions To Witnesses
I. Senator DeWine's Questions for The Honorable Charles James,
Assistant Attoney General for the Antitrust Division:
1. The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. The
Department has suggested that a shorter time period is justified
because this industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be
warranted after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has
the ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree
or terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it
needs to be modified or abandoned?
2. As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,''
``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.''
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so,
do you believe the proposed final judgment denies Microsoft the
fruits of its illegal acts? Specificall3, can you discuss whether
Microsoft has been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a
monopoly in the operating system?
3. The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against
Microsoft retaliating against computer manufacturers that place
competing software on their computers-these provisions are intended
to allow manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they
choose. I understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to
computer manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot
up'' quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not
want to slow down the start-up time by placing additional software
on the computer because they will risk losing the incentive payment.
Does the proposed settlement deal with this problem?
4. The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier
protects Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated
that this allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even
in the face of competition from potentially ``superior''
new rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement
addresses the applications barrier?
5. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-
installing rival software. And second, it seems that software
developers are more likely to write their programs to operate on
Microsoft's middleware if they ``know that the Microsoft
middleware will always be on the computer whereas competing products
may not be. Even if consumers are unaware that code is commingled,
should we be
[[Page 30258]]
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what
concerns are raised by removing the code?
6. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First,
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality
ofcM1 antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish? And
second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to dissuade
other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of conduct in
which Microsoft engaged?
7. Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's
proposed final judgment because they didn't believe it adequately
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the
internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of
such action would be?
8. Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system,
some believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede
Microsoft's ability to capture a dominant share of any product that
it binds to its operating system. Do you believe that media players,
instant messaging services, and other competing products will be
able to compete with similar MS products that are bound to the
operating system?
9. Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it
has loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating
as it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer.
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements''
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating
against computer manufacturers?
10. The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to
competition? What does the DOJ's proposed settlement do to restore
this competition?
11. Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to
allow Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes
the operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility
of a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this
determination?
12. Many antitrust cases involve the appointment of a special
master who has some level of enforcement authority. This proposed
final judgement does not do that and instead relies primarily upon
standard civil and criminal contempt proceedings, as well as a
special three person panel. Why has the Division elected not to
appoint a special master that may speed effective enforcement,
especially given the Division's concern for how rapidly this market
changes?
13. The Department of Justice has indicated that one motivation
for entering into this settlement was to provide immediate relief
and avoid lengthy court proceedings. At the same time, many of the
provision of the settlement don't become active for up to 12 months
after the settlement is enacted. Given your belief that relief
should be immediate, why wait so long for these provisions to become
active?
14. One provision of the proposed final judgment requires
Microsoft to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable
access to competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in
the United States within the previous ,ear. This seems to run
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these
protections limited to larger competitors?
Senator DeWine's Questions for Jay Himes, Antitrust Bureau Chief,
Office of the Attorney General, New York
1. The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. It has been
suggested that a shorter time period is justified because this
industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be warranted
after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has the
ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree or
terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it
needs to be modified or abandoned?
2. As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,''
``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.''
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so,
does the proposed final judgment deny Microsoft the fruits of its
illegal acts? Specifically, can you discuss whether Microsoft has
been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a monopoly in the
operating system?
3. The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against
Microsoft retaliating against computer manufacturers that place
competing software on their computers-these provisions are intended
to allow manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they
choose. I understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to
computer manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot
up'' quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not
want to slow down the start-up time by placing additional software
on the computer because they will risk losing the incentive payment.
Does the proposed settlement deal with this problem?
4. The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier
protects Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated
that this allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even
in the face of competition from potentially ``superior''
new rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement
addresses the applications barrier?
5. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters
``competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate
Court found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-
installing rival software. And second, it seems that software
developers are more likely to write their programs to operate on
Microsoft's middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware
will always be on the computer whereas competing products may not
be. Even if consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't
we be concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is
the upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand,
what concerns are raised by removing the code?
6. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First,
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality
of civil antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish?
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?
7. Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's
proposed final judgment because they didn't believe it adequately
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the
internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of
such action would be?
8. Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system,
some believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede
Microsoft's
[[Page 30259]]
ability to capture a dominant share of any product that it binds to
its operating system. Do you believe that media players, instant
messaging services, and other competing products will be able to
compete with similar MS products that are bound to the operating
system?
9. Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it
has loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating
as it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer.
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements''
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating
against computer manufacturers?
10. The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to
competition? What does the proposed final judgment do to restore
this competition?
11. Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to
allow Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes
the operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility
of a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this
determination?
12. It has been indicated that one motivation for entering into
this settlement was to provide immediate relief and avoid lengthy
court proceedings. At the same time, many of the provision of the
settlement don't become active for up to 12 months after the
settlement is enacted. Given your belief that relief should be
immediate, why wait so long for these provisions to become active?
13. One provision of the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft
to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable access to
competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in
the United States within the previous year. This seems to run
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these
protections limited to larger competitors?
Senator DeWine's Questions for Charles F. Rule, Fried, Frank, Harris,
Shriver & Jacobson, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation, Washington,
DC
1. Mr. Rule, in your testimony you have gone to great length to
explain how certain portions of the government's case were dropped
or thrown out during the course of litigation. Does Microsoft
acknowledge that it violated the antitrust laws?
2. Mr. Rule, many within the high tech industry have argued that
the antitrust laws are overly cumbersome when it comes to promoting
competition within the fast-changing industry. Is this Microsoft's
position?
3. Mr. Rule, what do you believe are the appropriate objectives
of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you believe the
case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition cases should
be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? Finally, do
you believe this settlement fully achieves the appropriate remedy
objectives? If not, in what ways is it deficient? And in what ways,
if any, do you believe it reaches beyond the case?
4. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. It seems to me that this deters
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing
rival software. And second, it seems that software developers are
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't we be
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what
concerns are raised by removing the code?
5. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First,
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality
of civil antitrust remedies, that they don't really aim to punish?
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?
IV. Senator DeWine's Questions for Professor Lawrence Lessig, Esq.,
Stanford Law School
1. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an appropriate
remedy should try and steer Microsoft toward developing its strategy
in regards to the Internet. First, why wouldn't such an objective
fall outside the clear confines of the case and thus be an
inappropriate goal for a remedy? And second, given the fact that a
court found Microsoft to have engaged in significant violations of
the antitrust laws, should we be concerned about the company
attempting to leverage its operating system monopoly to become
dominant at the Internet level?
2. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an integral
part of the Court's conclusion was its finding that Microsoft had
``commingled code'' in such a way as to interfere with the
ability of competitors to compete on an even playing field. Do you
believe the Justice Department's proposed final judgment adequately
deals with this anticompetitive conduct?
3. Mr. Lessig, you mention that there are problems with the
proposed decree aside from enforcement. What are some of the other
areas of concern?
4. Mr. Lessig, what do you believe are the appropriate
objectives of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you
believe the case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition
cases should be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases?
Finally, do you believe this settlement fully achieves the
appropriate remedy objectives? If not, in what way is it deficient?
V. Senator DeWine's Questions For Mark N. Cooper, Ph.D., Director of
Research, Consumer Federation of America
1. Mr. Cooper, many have stated that the alternative proposed
remedies presented by the litigating states are not justifiable
based on the conduct that the Appellate court found to be illegal.
Do you agree? If not, how do you believe provisions such as
requiting Microsoft to open source its browser code and provide
multiple versions of its operating system relate to the conduct that
was found to have been illegal?
VI. Senator DeWine's Questions For Jonathan Zuck, President,
Association of Competitive Technology
1. This case has obviously been very controversial and inspired
a great deal of discussion regarding the effectiveness of the
antitrust laws, especially within the hi-tech industry. Netscape,
for example, vocally opposed Microsoft during this litigation, and
many of Netscape's complaints were validated by the courts, and yet
Netscape has essentially been defeated. That sort of result has led
some to question whether the antitrust laws can be effective in this
industry. What lesson do you believe this case teaches in that
regard, and what do we say to Netscape?
2. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-
installing rival software. And second, software developers are may
be more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, should we be
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what
concerns are raised by removing the code? Further, what assurances
can you give to this Committee that members of your organization
will not merely choose to write to the Microsoft middleware, but
will fully support competing products as well?
[[Page 30260]]
Senator DeWine's Questions For Matthew J. Szulik, President and Chief
Operating Officer, Red Hat, Inc.
1. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-
installing rival software. And second, software developers may be
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, should we be
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what
concerns are raised by removing the code?
2. What impact do you believe the Proposed Final Judgment will
have on the ability of competing operating systems, such as Linux,
to gain traction in the market? Contrast this with the impact you
believe a settlement proposal such as that offered by the litigating
states would have.
VIII. Senator De Wine's Questions For Mitchell E, Kertzman, President
and CEO, Liberate Technologies
1. The Proposed Final Judgement aims to make the middleware
market more competitive. Do you believe it is effective in doing so?
2. Do you believe Microsoft will be able to leverage its
monopoly in the PC operating system market to capture market share
in other operating systems markets such as hand-held devices,
navigation devices and servers? Does the proposed settlement address
this issue at all, and do you believe the Appellate Court's ruling
would permit a settlement that addresses these type of concerns?
QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
I understand that the Justice Department officials,
representatives of State Attorneys General, and Microsoft lawyers
worked around the clock to come to an agreement on this settlement.
A. How many meetings were there on the settlement?
B. Were the states sufficiently involved in the process?
C. Was there anyone in the room during those negotiations who
was not affiliated with the parties to the litigation who may have
been able to bring another perspective on the terms of the
agreement?
Now that we are in the 60 day period of the Tunney Act
proceeding to determine the public interest aspects of this
settlement, what, if any, role do you envision Congress should play?
Microsoft is about to settle with about half the states who
joined in the original DOJ lawsuit, but the other half of the states
are continuing with the court-issued remedies phase of the
litigation. Naturally, there may be differences in the remedies in
the two different vehicles for closing out this case. How will you
reconcile the potential differences between the terms of the
settlement accepted by the nine settling state plaintiffs and the
remedies to be awarded to the ten non-settling state plaintiffs?
QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO MICROSOFT
This is an unprecedented settlement for an unprecedented case.
The entire world has been, and will continue to, watch every aspect
of this case. They will also be watching to see if Microsoft
complies with every word of this decree. Assuming this settlement is
approved, can you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure
compliance with the settlement? Are these steps unique in any way?
What assurances can the American people have that Microsoft will
really be constrained from future anti-competitive practices?
QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
AMERICA
In your mind, what are the most significant shortcomings of this
settlement? What will this settlement enable Microsoft to do that
you believe they should be prevented from doing?
Our economy is currently in a recession and our country is at
war. What are the compelling reasons for continuing this litigation
against Microsoft rather than finding a way to settle?
States that are continuing to pursue litigation want Microsoft
to disclose source code for Web browsing functionality now in
Windows. This would turn Microsoft's intellectual property into
``open-source.''
A. What are the ramifications to Microsoft and to its
competitors if Microsoft is forced to subject its intellectual
property to an open-source standard?
g. In the future, what should competitors expect from companies
that establish dominance in the technology marketplace?
Questions Submitted For the Record by Senator McConnell for Witness
Charles James
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on The Microsoft
Settlement
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
10:00 a.m.
106 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Question: Can you describe how the appeals court ruling impacted
the case originally brought by the Department of Justice in 1998?
Question: Can you tell us more about how this agreement came
about, or the process involved in reaching a settlement?
Question: Some have criticized the agreement for not going far
enough. Do you believe that the proposed settlement compares
favorably to-and in some respects may well exceed-the remedy that
might have emerged from a judicial hearing?
Question: This litigation has been going on for almost 4 years.
Will this settlement accelerate the point in time at which a remedy
will begin to take effect?
Question: Assuming the settlement is approved by the court, can
you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure compliance with
the settlement?
Question: Are you aware of this type of enforcement mechanism
being adopted in any other antitrust proceeding?
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
January 24, 2002
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Please find enclosed the answers to the written follow-up
questions posed to Assistant Attorney General Charles James
following his testimony before your Committee on December 12, 2001,
on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future.'' The
Department appreciates the opportunity to provide its views to the
Committee on this important topic.
Of course, please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of
any assistance on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Bryant
Assistant Attorney General
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority Member
CHAIRMAN LEAHY'S QUESTIONS QUESTION
Jim Barksdale, the former CE0 of Netscape, tells us in a written
submission that if the proposed settlement had governed Microsoft's
behavior ten years ago, he would never have been able to obtain the
venture capital to launch Netscape and, even if it did, Microsoft
would have been able to crush the company. It is harsh criticism of
the proposed settlement that it would have made no difference and
that it would allow Microsoft to engage in the same exclusionary
practices that extinguished Netscape and crippled Java. Do you think
that this criticism is fair and, if not, why?
ANSWER
The Department disagrees with Mr. Barksdale's criticism. The
essence of the criticism is that the prospects facing start-up firms
promoting new software products would be greater if such companies
could be guaranteed that they would not face competition from
Microsoft Creating such an environment, however, is not one of the
goals of public enforcement of the antitrust laws.
More directly, Mr. Barksdale complains that the proposed Final
Judgment fails to stop Microsoft from integrating new functions and
capabilities into the Windows operating system The Department
challenged Microsoft's integration of its browser into the operating
system in its attempted monopolization and tying claims, neither of
which was sustained by the Court. Contrary to Mr. Barksdale's view,
the proposed Final Judgment does not create any new rights for
Microsoft with regard to product integration. The proposed Final
Judgment merely reflects the fact that, in light of the Court's
ruling, there is no legal basis for enjoining Microsoft altogether
from integrating middleware into its operating system, if that
middleware is
[[Page 30261]]
removable and computer manufacturers and consumers are contractually
free to remove it, as a remedy for the violations found in the case.
Microsoft remains subject to the antitrust laws with respect to
tying and in every other respect.
Mr. Barksdale also makes the curious assertion that Netscape
would have fared better without the proposed Final Judgment than
with it. The proposed Final Judgment expressly prohibits the very
practices Microsoft deployed to impede the emergence of Netscape's
Web browser. Thus, had the decree been in effect, Netscape would
have had access to Microsoft's APIs in the development process, been
able to obtain distribution through computer manufacturers, and been
able to become the default browser if a computer manufacturer or
consumer elected to use Netscape in that way. Other firms in the
industry would have been free to collaborate with Netscape without
fear of retaliation by Microsoft.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Barksdale apparently believes that
Microsoft should be altogether prohibited from competing with start-
up firms like his former company. The Courts found that Microsoft
engaged in specific practices that were unlawful under the antitrust
laws. The proposed Final Judgment prohibits those unlawful acts,
contains specific prohibitions to prevent their recurrence, and
takes affirmative steps to restore the competitive conditions in the
middleware marketplace. Consumers benefit from competition. The goal
of the antitrust laws, therefore, is to protect competition, not to
favor start-up firms over incumbents.
QUESTION
The remedy filed by the non-settling States would require that
the agreement be enforced by a court-appointed special master with
the authority to monitor Microsoft's complaints, and with the power
to investigate, call witnesses, and conduct hearings if the company
appears to have violated the agreement. Your proposed settlement
provides for a three- member panel paid for by Microsoft that can
listen to and investigate complaints, but which lacks the
independent authority to convene hearings and examine witnesses.
This panel must turn to the Justice Department for any such
activity, and its members may not offer testimony themselves in any
proceeding. Although the three member panel might be helpful in
gathering some information, in terms of actual enforcement, the
Justice Department will have to start from scratch with any action.
In light of the fact that everyone agrees that this is a rapidly-
moving industry, the inherent delays in such a process seem more
likely to hamper than to enhance Microsoft's compliance with the
decree. Why did you decide to create this unique and limited panel,
rather than a more traditional special master?
ANSWER
The Department believes that this and other Department antitrust
final judgments can and should be enforced by the Department.
Contrary, to the assumption underlying this question, there is no
history or tradition of the Department delegating enforcement
responsibility for its antitrust enforcement orders to third
parties. Moreover, the Department believes that delegating
enforcement authority to a special master in this particular case
would have been misguided, possibly resulting in that individual
becoming a one-person regulatory body, exercising de facto
regulatory control over a broad range of behavior and conduct in the
information technology sector, and setting antitrust enforcement
policy in the process.
The proposed Final Judgment ensures that the full force of the
United States is available to enforce the judgment. The three-person
compliance team was never intended to displace that enforcement
authority. Rather, it is intended to facilitate enforcement through
regular access to information and an affirmative obligation to
report violations to the Department. Should the Department seek an
enforcement action against Microsoft, it will not have to
``start from scratch.'' The Department is not precluded
from utilizing, relying on, or making derivative use of, the
technical committee's work product, findings or recommendations in
connection with any activities relating to enforcement of the
proposed Final Judgment.
Assuming that a special master would be required to afford
individuals appropriate procedural protections and that its
determinations would be subject to judicial review, the Department
does not see any basis for assuming that enforcement by a special
master would be more expeditious than enforcement by the Department.
In fact, the Department believes that the very opposite would be
true.
QUESTION
The Court of Appeals specifically, held--twice--that
commingling the browser and operating system code violated section 2
of the Sherman Act. Yet, the proposed settlement contains no
prohibition on commingling code. In your testimony before the
Committee, you explained that the Department had never taken the
position that Microsoft should be required to remove code from the
operating system, and that the proposed settlement is thus
consistent with a long-standing position of the Department. That
explanation appears to neglect two things: First, the settlement is
forward-looking, and second, the court's determination that
commingling code was an exclusionary act. Taken together, these
facts suggest that a ban on .future exclusionary commingling of code
is entirely consistent with the Department's position, would provide
appropriate relief for the violation found, and would help prevent
its recurrence. Do you agree that such a ban on future exclusionary
commingling would comport with the Court of Appeals decision? Did
you consider such a ban? Do you agree that such a ban on future
exclusionary commingling would provide appropriate relief for the
violation found, and would help prevent its recurrence?
ANSWER
The Department challenged Microsoft's practice of commingling
operating system and browser code for the purpose of preventing the
removal of its browser. The proposed Final Judgment fully addresses
this conduct by requiring Microsoft to create and maintain an
effective add/remove function for certain Microsoft middleware and
to permit competing middleware to take on a ``default''
status that will override middleware functions Microsoft has
integrated into the operating system The provisions, therefore, will
stop the offending conduct and prevent its recurrence.
Consistently throughout its discussion of the remedy in this
case, the Department has maintained that it did not seek to require
Microsoft to remove the commingled code. The Department does not
read the Court of Appeals'' decision to state an affirmative
rule of software design prohibiting all future commingling divorced
from any adverse effect on competition. As the Court of Appeals
noted, it is the use of the middleware product by the consumer, not
the presence of the code, that has competitive significance. A ban
on commingling without regard to competitive significance would
impose a wholly unnecessary and artificial constraint on software
design that could have adverse implications for consumers.
Additionally, changes to the operating system required to implement
such a prohibition likely would have adverse effects upon third
parties that have already designed software to the present operating
system code. A prohibition on commingling in this particular case,
therefore, would be harmful, not helpful.
QUESTION
There has never been a Tunney Act proceeding after litigation
through the court of appeals before. In the first Microsoft-
Department of Justice Tunney Act proceeding in 1994, the court
suggested that great deference should be given to the appellate
court's findings. Do you believe that the Court of Appeals''
decision provides useful input to the definition of ``public
interest'' in this unique context?
ANSWER
The Department strictly adhered to the mandates within the Court
of Appeals'' decision in fashioning the remedy contained within
the proposed Final Judgment. Beyond the Department's position set
forth in its submissions to the District Court in this matter,
however, it would be inappropriate for the Department to comment on
the appropriate scope of the Court's discretion because the Court's
review of the proposed Final Judgment is pending under the Tunney
Act
QUESTION
5(a).
As I mentioned at the Committee's hearing, in describing your
settlement, Fortune magazine said ``Even the loopholes have
loopholes.'' The settlement limits the types of retaliation
Microsoft may take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or
promote non-Microsoft software. By implication the settlement
appears to give a green light to other types of retaliation. You
responded to my question about retaliation by saying that the
settlement would permit collaboration generally approved in the
antitrust case law Please clarify the Department's position a little
further. Why does the settlement not ban all types of retaliation?
[[Page 30262]]
ANSWER
The term ``retaliation'' can be subject to overbroad
interpretation in many contexts, including an antitrust final
judgment. Literally, the term could be read to mean the withholding
of any benefit in response to an undesired action. In a commercial
context, a firm might be said to have ``retaliated''
against a prospective customer or supplier through any adverse
action whether or not their interaction has any competitive
significance. For example, if Microsoft decided for valid business
reasons that it no longer wanted to engage in a particular business
transaction, it could be accused of retaliating. To give the term
retaliation meaning in the context of this proposed Final Judgment,
reference must be made to the offending conduct, i.e., actions taken
against firms seeking to develop, promote or distribute competing
middleware.
To amplify upon my answer at the hearing, the proposed Final
Judgment does not, and should not, prohibit Microsoft from engaging
in all forms of collaborative conduct Such a prohibition would be
anticompetitive to the extent that some forms of collaboration
Microsoft might engage in would help in the creation or distribution
of new products for the benefit of consumers. The proposed Final
Judgment prohibits Microsoft from withholding benefits from those
who support competing middleware products, while permitting the
company to grant benefits specifically in the context of bona fide
collaborative ventures under well-established antitrust standards
(which necessarily means ``withholding'' those same
``benefits'' from companies not engaged in the particular
bona fide collaborative venture).
QUESTION
5(b)
The settlement requires Microsoft to treat PC manufacturers the
same in some respects but in other important respects Microsoft is
allowed to treat PC manufacturers differently What are the ways in
which Microsoft can treat differently PC manufacturers that carry
competing software compared to those that agree to carry Microsoft
products exclusively?
ANSWER
Neither the antitrust laws generally, nor the Court of
Appeals'' decision specifically, require that Microsoft, even
as a monopolist, treat all third-parties equally. In fact, in many
instances ``unequal'' treatment (e.g., collaboration
between two companies that does not include other firms) evidences
legitimate competition. Thus, the Department carefully crafted the
proposed Final Judgment to ensure that it addresses the conduct
found unlawful by the Court of Appeals without precluding conduct
with potentially procompetitive effects.
Section III.A. contains a broad ban on retaliation by Microsoft
against computer manufacturers because they support competing
middleware or operating system products. Microsoft is, however,
permitted to provide consideration to a computer manufacturer for a
particular Microsoft product or service where such consideration is
commensurate with the level or amount of the computer manufacturer's
development, distribution, promotion or licensing of that specific
product or service. Thus, Microsoft can base such consideration only
on the absolute level or amount of the computer manufacturer's
support for the Microsoft product or service, rather than any
relative level or amount that may serve to exclude rivals''
products. Section III.G 1. prohibits Microsoft from granting
computer manufacturers and certain others consideration on the
condition that they distribute, promote, use, or support exclusively
or in a fixed percentage any Microsoft middleware or operating
system. However, Microsoft is permitted to use fixed percentage
arrangements where it is commercially practicable for the computer
manufacturer or other entity to provide equal or greater support for
software that competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating
system. In addition, Microsoft may enter into bona fide joint
ventures or joint development or joint services, ices arrangements
with computer manufacturers and others for a new product, technology
or service, in which both Microsoft and the computer manufacturer or
other entity 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.
QUESTION
You referred at the hearing to the fact that the settlement
would permit certain collaborative conduct between Microsoft and
others. Please explain in detail what Types of collaboration are
permitted by the decree, and what types are forbidden.
ANSWER
It would be inappropriate for the Department to comment on the
ability of Microsoft to engage in specific, hypothetical
collaborations. More generally, however, in addition to the forms of
collaboration described in response to question 5.(b). above,
Section III.F. of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits Microsoft
from entering into agreements with software vendors that condition
the grant of any consideration on the vendor refraining from
developing, using, distributing, or promoting a software that
competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating system or any
software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft's
middleware or operating system However, Microsoft may enter into
agreements that place limitations on a software vendor'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 vendor to use, distribute, or promote any
Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction
with, Microsoft.
QUESTION
Among the exceptions in the proposed settlement to the bans on
retaliation, Microsoft is permitted to provide ``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.'' This seems to permit
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry, Microsoft's
products or software; this is just the flip side of
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?
ANSWER
Nothing in the antitrust laws generally or the Court of
Appeals'' decision specifically requires that Microsoft be
prohibited from competing in the market by working with computer
manufacturers to promote its products and services. Indeed, it is
hard to imagine how any such prohibition would benefit consumers.
Instead, the proposed Final Judgment addresses that conduct found
unlawful by the Court of Appeals and permits conduct that has
potentially procompetitive effects. Allowing Microsoft to provide
consideration based on a relative level or amount of support may
serve to exclude rivals'' middleware products and, thus, is
prohibited under the proposed Final Judgment. Whereas, allowing
consideration based on the absolute level or amount of the computer
manufacturer's support permits bona fide collaborations that may
benefit consumers and are unlikely to exclude rivals. Thus, the
proposed Final Judgment does not prohibit this conduct.
QUESTION
In 1995, the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and
scope of this Final Judgment before it is entered?
ANSWER
The Department's goal was to reach as clear a settlement
agreement as possible in this case The proposed Final Judgment
embodies the common, explicit understanding as to the settlement
terms among the Department, the settling States and Microsoft,
QUESTION
Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed Final
Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should be
precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the
Judgment?
ANSWER
The Department's goal is to make final judgments as precise and
unambiguous as possible. The mutual understanding among the
Department, the settling States and Microsoft in this case is
embodied in the proposed Final Judgment.
[[Page 30263]]
QUESTION
If Microsoft were to disagree with the Department's
interpretation of one or more important provisions of the proposed
Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially serious
problem?
ANSWER
Whether or not Microsoft's interpretation of one or more
provisions of the proposed Final Judgment would be a serious problem
would depend on the specific nature of the disagreement and the
provisions of the Final Judgment that were implicated, among other
things. It would be inappropriate for the Department to speculate on
the seriousness of a hypothetical disagreement.
QUESTION
Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify any
significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department over
the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now,
before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather than through
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment embodies the complete agreement
between the Department and Microsoft. The proposed Final Judgment in
this case was entered through the standard procedures under which
the Department settles antitrust cases. It is hard to imagine a
mechanism under which understandings reached outside of those
procedures would be enforceable.
QUESTION
Does the Competitive Impact Statement set forth the Department's
definitive interpretation of its proposed Final Judgment with
Microsoft?
ANSWER
The Tunney Act establishes the requirements for a Competitive
Impact Statement. Pursuant to the Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, a
Competitive Impact Statement provides:
(1) the nature and purpose of the proceeding;
(2) a description of the practices or events giving rise to the
alleged violation of the antitrust laws;
(3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgment,
including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to
such proposal or any provision contained therein, relief to be
obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such
relief,
(4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs
damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for
the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding;
(5) a description of the procedures available for modification
of such proposal; and
(6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such
proposal actually considered by the United States.
QUESTION
Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
ANSWER
The Department is unaware of any disagreement that Microsoft may
have with the Competitive Impact Statement.
QUESTION
Can the public at large rely upon the Department's Competitive
Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the nature and
scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final Judgment?
ANSWER
As explained in response to Question 10 above, the Tunney Act
establishes the requirements for a Competitive Impact Statement.
Pursuant to the Act, 15 U.S C. 16, the Competitive
Impact Statement provides the public and others with:
(1) the nature and purpose of the proceeding;
(2) a description of the practices or events giving rise to the
alleged violation of the antitrust laws;
(3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgment,
including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to
such proposal or any provision contained therein, relief to be
obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such
relief,
(4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs
damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for
the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding;
(5) a description of the procedures available for modification
of such proposal; and
(6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such
proposal actually considered by the United States.
QUESTION
If the public cannot rely on the Department's interpretation of
the proposed Final Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact
Statement, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-upon
interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's obligations
under the Final Judgment?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment itself embodies the mutually
understood and agreed-upon settlement agreement among the
Department, the settling States and Microsoft.
QUESTION
The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the district
court ``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 such proposal, except that any such
communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney
General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone shall be
excluded from the requirements of this subsection.'' Microsoft
has recently made its filing, and many have been surprised by its
brevity. Do you believe that this provision requires disclosure of
communications by Charles Rule to the Justice Department prior to
the date upon which he became counsel of record? Do you believe it
requires disclosure of contacts made on behalf of Microsoft to
members of Congress? How does the Department define
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Is
that definition consistent across all Tunney Act proceedings? Do you
believe that it covers anything more than the actual negotiations of
the decree2
ANSWER
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 16(g), defendants must file a
description of specified communications relating to the proposed
settlement. These filings are made to the district court and are not
evaluated or reviewed by the Department. It would inappropriate in
this case for the Department to comment on Microsoft's 16(g) filing
or interpret the requirements of the Tunney Act as they relate to
its obligations.
SENATOR HATCH'S QUESTIONS
QUESTION
One of the principal concerns voiced by critics of the Proposed
Settlement is that it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
These critics suggest that some type of fast-track enforcement
mechanism, such as the appointment of a special master, is
necessary, to ensure compliance. Could you please explain: First,
why you believe the enforcement avenues provided for by the Proposed
Settlement are sufficient; and, Second, how you envision effective
enforcement actually being carried out in the real world?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment contains one of the most stringent
regimes of compliance ever contained in a final judgment entered by
the Department. The proposed Final Judgment provides, as it should,
for direct enforcement by the Department, supplemented by full-time,
on-site monitoring by an expert compliance team, and a further
penalty in the event of recurring violations. The Department
believes that it has the resources, expertise, and, most
importantly, the expert knowledge of the antitrust laws and the
public interest focus to fully enforce the Final Judgment. Further,
the Department sees no basis for the assertion that enforcement by a
special master would be any more efficient, expeditious or effective
than enforcement by the Department.
A core team of experienced lawyers and economists established
within our newly formed Networks & Technology Section, and
including members of the litigation team, is charged with
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This enforcement team,
assisted by the technical committee formed under the proposed Final
Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Final
Judgment and take any necessary, action, up to and including
initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective enforcement.
QUESTION
Because the three-person Technical Counsel created by the
Proposed Settlement has no enforcement powers, won't the level
[[Page 30264]]
of enforcement of the Proposed Settlement depend principally on how
proactive the Department and State Attorneys General are in
dedicating resources and attention to prompt and effective oversight
and enforcement? What resources does the Department plan on
committing to enforcement of the Proposed Settlement?
ANSWER
The Department believes that it should enforce the remedial
orders entered in the cases it has prosecuted. We further believe
that the Court is the appropriate forum in which to air disputes
concerning enforcement of the Court's order. The Department does not
delegate its enforcement responsibilities in antitrust matters to
third parties We, therefore, specifically rejected the notion of
granting enforcement authority to the technical committee that would
have supplanted the enforcement power of the United States The
proposed Final Judgment will be enforced by the skilled men and
women of the Department's Antitrust Division. We are very proud of
the work performed by the Division staff on this case, who worked
tirelessly to secure the liability determinations upon which the
proposed Final Judgment is premised. We, therefore, adamantly reject
any assertion that the staff is not up to the task of enforcing this
proposed Final Judgment. A core team of experienced lawyers and
economists established within our newly formed Networks &
Technology Section, and including members of the litigation team, is
charged with enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This
enforcement team, assisted by the technical committee formed under
the proposed Final Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance
with the Final Judgment and take any necessary action, up to and
including initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective
enforcement
QUESTION
In my opening statement, I raised the issue of prompt and
effective enforcement in high-technology markets. As the DC Circuit
clearly recognized, the passage of time frequently overtakes alleged
anticompetitive actions, making them--in the DC Circuit's
language--``obsolete'' before a remedy is devised and
implemented. In ``our view, what can be done to minimize this
problem and ensure that antitrust remedies are developed early
enough to provide meaningful relief?
ANSWER
The Department believes that the current antitrust laws are
sufficient to guarantee not only competition, but timely,
enforcement in high-tech areas, such as the software industry.
QUESTION
Could you explain the pros and cons of having the enforcement
function performed by governmental agencies as opposed to a special
master or adjudicator)'' panel of some type?
ANSWER
The Department believes that it should enforce the remedial
orders entered in the cases it has prosecuted. The Department does
not delegate that function to third parties in antitrust matters and
believes that departing from that well-established policy would be
particularly troublesome in this case. The Department has the
necessary, resources, expertise and enforcement authority to carry
out this function, just as it has in countless other cases.
Moreover, the Department has the expert knowledge of the antitrust
laws and the public interest focus required for this task. The
proposed Final Judgment covers a broad range of competitive
interaction between Microsoft and firms at every, level of the
information technology industry. As is evident already, many in the
industry see Microsoft's liability as a basis for demanding all
manner of private rights, whether or not their demands have anything
to do with the matters litigated in the case. Delegating actual
enforcement power to any third party in this case would have been
misguided, possibly resulting in that individual becoming a de facto
regulatory body, exercising broad control over the information
technology sector, and doing so without the legal framework that
ordinarily would be imposed upon such a scheme. The Microsoft case
is a public law enforcement matter. The Department believes that
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment should rest with the
public agency charged with that function. The Department also has
complete confidence in the Court to act expeditiously and to enter
orders enforcing the proposed Final Judgment as appropriate.
QUESTION
Could you also explain why you oppose--assuming that you do
oppose--an alternate or additional enforcement mechanism?
ANSWER
The enforcement mechanism contained in the proposed Final
Judgment will effectively ensure Microsoft's timely compliance with
the judgment. An alternate or additional enforcement mechanism is
unnecessary.
QUESTION
As you know, I believe that one important aspect of the Internet
is the freedom that consumers have to choose where to go and what
websites to visit. Currently, consumers can choose to go to whatever
websites they want. Commentators and industry participants argue
that there is a legitimate fear that an Internet mediator
might--for one reason or another--decide to limit access
to certain sites while traffic is directed to other sites, or decide
that certain sites will be treated differently than other sites in
ways that push consumers in the direction of favored sites instead
of leaving the choice entirely and fairly to consumers. Who do you
believe should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer
or the Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a
software company, or a cable or satellite company? ,Also, could you
please explain whether and why you believe this is an important
competition policy concern?
ANSWER
The mission of the Department is to enforce the federal
antitrust laws. The Department would evaluate any conduct by firms
in the computer industry, including Internet mediators, that harms
consumers and may violate the antitrust laws. The Department does
not, however, have a view in the abstract as to who should decide
where a consumer can go online.
QUESTION
Some critics claim that the only real penalty Microsoft faces
for violating the Proposed Settlement is the extension of the terms
of the Settlement for two additional years Is that an accurate
criticism; and, if not, could you please briefly explain the
penalties faced by Microsoft if it fails to abide by the Proposed
Settlement?
ANSWER
The Department fundamentally disagrees with this criticism. In
addition to seeking the penalty of extending the proposed Final
Judgment term for an additional two years, the Department has all of
the enforcement powers available to it under federal law, including
criminal or civil contempt proceedings, petitions for injunctive
relief to halt or prevent violations, motions for declarator-
3'' judgment to clarify or interpret particular provisions, and
motions to modify the proposed Final Judgment.
QUESTION
Could you please expand on why you believe the Department has
sufficient expertise to accurately evaluate the competitive
implications of software design and other technical development
choices? Additionally, specifically what has the Department done to
ensure that it has the expertise necessary to assess at an early
stage both the lawfulness and potential anticompetitive effects of
highly-technical actions taken by companies such as Microsoft? Does
the Department have a specific plan for allocating resources or
personnel to develop the necessary'' expertise to identify and
take effective action while potential antitrust problems are still
on the horizon?
ANSWER
The Department has both the resources and capability to address
such technical issues, as they affect enforcement matters, through
internal means and, where appropriate, the retention of outside
experts. The Department has staff attorneys and economists,
including members of the staff that worked tirelessly on the
Microsoft case for many years, who have significant technical
expertise in the software industry, as well as other high-tech
fields. The Department routinely investigates, and relies on the
expertise of its personnel to assess the effects of,
companies'' conduct in these high-tech industries. The
Department continuously evaluates and seeks to improve its expertise
to allow it to identify and take effective action to address
competitive issues.
QUESTION
In his written testimony (pp. 18-19), Mr. Himes of the New
York State Attome3'' General's Office briefly discusses the
importance of the Proposed Settlement's definition of
``Middleware.'' The D.C Circuit defined middleware very
simply as ``software products that expose their own APIs [or
``Application Programming Interfaces']. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at
53. Could you explain why the Proposed Settlement adopts a
[[Page 30265]]
narrower, two prong definition? Could you also further explain the
distribution threshold contained in the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products,'' requiring that--to meet
the definition--at least one million copies of the Middleware
Product have been distributed within the United States during the
previous 3'ear? Will this threshold provision disadvantage
innovation among start-up entrepreneurs or those who develop
software for highly-specialized markets as some have criticized? Is
there some other way to address the concerns underlying this
``one million copy'' threshold?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals'' decision did not seek to define the
term middleware in a manner that would suffice for remedial
purposes. Rather, the opinion contains descriptive language to aid
in the exposition of the issues in the case For remedial purposes,
the definition must be more technical so as to ensure limits within
the terms of the liability found and enforceability of the proposed
Final Judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in
anticompetitive practices with respect to two middleware products,
Web browsers and Java. Those products were deemed to have exposed a
range of APIs so as to have the potential to evolve into an
alternate platform, thereby threatening Microsoft's operating system
monopoly. Not all products that expose APIs have that quality. The
proposed Final Judgment adopts a broad definition of middleware that
includes the specific products at issue in this case, other specific
products that already have emerged as potential alternative
platforms, and products that may be developed in the future that may
have similar cross-platform qualities. Under the proposed Final
Judgment, a computer manufacturer will have the right to install any
competing middleware application, without regard to the number of
copies of that competing middleware that have been distributed. The
one million copy limitation exists only with respect to the
requirements that Microsoft make public the APIs used in its own
middleware products and redesign the operating system to provide a
competing middleware product ``default''
status--i.e., the ability to override automatically Microsoft
middleware functions integrated into the operating system The
limitation strikes the proper balance between the substantial costs
associated with such documentation and redesign efforts, and the
competitive potential of products with fewer than one million copies
distributed. To do otherwise would have put the operating system in
a state of constant flux, which would have had disastrous
implications for users and developers alike. Moreover, in a world of
about 625 million PC users and software distribution via downloads
and direct mail, distribution of only one million copies, rather
than sales, installation or usage, is a relatively minor threshold
in the software industry today. As you know, Americans routinely
receive unsolicited software offers via the mail every day.
QUESTION
I found Mr. Jim Barksdale's letter noteworthy in several
respects, but am particularly interested in his claim that the
Proposed Settlement would not have prevented Microsoft's unlawful
actions against Netscape. Could you please discuss whether the
Proposed Settlement would have prevented the actions taken by
Microsoft against Netscape that the DC Circuit held to be unlawful
had the Proposed Settlement been in existence in 1995, and, if so,
how?
ANSWER
Mr. Barksdale makes the curious assertion that Netscape would
have fared better without the proposed Final Judgment than with it.
The proposed Final Judgment expressly prohibits the very practices
Microsoft deployed to impede the emergence of Netscape's Navigator
and found unlawful by the Court of Appeals, Thus, had the Final
Judgment been in effect, Netscape would have had access to
Microsoft's APIs in the development process, been able to obtain
distribution through computer manufacturers, and been able to become
the default browser if a computer manufacturer or consumer elected
to use Netscape in that way. Other firms in the industry would have
been free to collaborate with Netscape without fear of retaliation
by Microsoft
SENATOR DEWINE'S QUESTIONS
QUESTION
The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. The
Department has suggested that a shorter time period is justified
because this industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be
warranted after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has
the ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree
or terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it
needs to be modified or abandoned?
ANSWER
The mission of the Department is to enforce the federal
antitrust laws and remedy specific violations thereof This mission
does not include regulating competition. Entering into an open-ended
final judgment with the intent of reevaluating its terms on a going-
forward basis would be contrary to the Department's mission.
QUESTION
As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,''
``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.''
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so,
do you believe the proposed final judgment denies Microsoft the
fruits of its illegal acts? Specifically, can you discuss whether
Microsoft has been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a
monopoly in the operating system'?.
ANSWER
In agreeing to the proposed Final Judgment, the Department
followed the Court of Appeals'' decision in this case and
applicable precedent. The Court of Appeals determined that Microsoft
had illegally maintained its operating system monopoly by engaging
in specific anticompetitive practices. While some have argued that
the ``fruits'' of this violation are the continued
monopoly in the operating system market and/or a monopoly in the Web
browser market, that is inconsistent with the Court of
Appeals'' decision. In discussing the scope of an appropriate
remedy, the Court of Appeals noted, ``the District Court
expressly did not adopt the position that Microsoft would have lost
its position in the OS market but for its anticompetitive
behavior.'' U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107 (DC Cir. 2001).
Further, the Court reversed the District Court's findings that
Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the Web browser market and
engaged in illegal tying. Consequently, there was no mandate for the
Department to strip Microsoft of its market position in either the
operating system or Web browser markets.
The proposed Final Judgment denies Microsoft the ability to use
its operating system monopoly to exclude competing middleware
products. In addition to prohibiting the illegal practices,
Microsoft is now required to provide to actual and potential
competitors APIs never before disclosed to them. Microsoft also must
make design changes that permit competing middleware to substitute
as the default product. Finally, Microsoft must now disclose to
competitors communications protocols for servers. These proactive
provisions create a far more positive environment for the
development of competing middleware than existed at the time of
Microsoft's unlawful behavior. In this environment, software
developers will have a full opportunity to compete for consumer
patronage that might make them an actual threat to Microsoft's
operating system monopoly.
QUESTION
The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against Microsoft
retaliating against computer manufacturers that place competing
software on their computers-these provisions are intended to allow
manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they choose. I
understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to computer
manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot up''
quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not want to
slow down the start-up time by placing additional software on the
computer because they, will risk losing the incentive payment. Does
the proposed settlement deal with this problem?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals decision in this case did not specifically
address the speed at which computers ``boot up.'' Nor does
the proposed Final Judgment. However, the proposed Final Judgment
does prohibit Microsoft from using market development allowances or
other discounts if they are inconsistent with any other provision in
the proposed Final Judgment. This would include, for example,
retaliation against computer manufacturers for using non-Microsoft
middleware implemented through incentive payments for faster
``boot ups.''
[[Page 30266]]
QUESTION
The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier protects
Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated that this
allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even in the
face of competition from potentially ``superior'' new
rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement
addresses the applications barrier?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment addresses the applications barrier
by restoring the nascent competitive threat to Microsoft's operating
system posed by middleware products. Middleware products expose
their own APIs, and thus, allow software developers to write
programs that run on the middleware itself. An application written
to rely exclusively on a middleware program's interfaces could run
on all operating systems on which that middleware runs. Because such
middleware also runs on Windows, applications developers would not
be required to sacrifice Windows compatibility if they choose to
write applications for a middleware platform. Applications
developers would thus have incentives to write for widely used
middleware, and users would not be reluctant to choose a non-Windows
operating system for fear that it would run an insufficient array of
applications
In addition to prohibiting the illegal practices, Microsoft is
now required to provide to actual and potential competitors APIs
never before disclosed to them. Microsoft also must make design
changes that permit competing middleware to substitute as the
default product. Finally, Microsoft must now disclose to competitors
communications protocols for servers. These proactive provisions
create a far more positive environment for the development of
competing middleware than existed at the time of Microsoft's
unlawful behavior. In this environment, software developers will
have a full opportunity to compete for consumer patronage that might
make them an actual threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
QUESTION
Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from commingling
operating system code with middleware code, competitors will not be
able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because the code is
commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed even if
consumers don't want them. This potentially deters competition in at
least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court found, commingling
deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing rival software.
And second, it seems that software developers are more likely to
write their programs to operate on Microsoft's middleware if they
know that the Microsoft middleware will always be on the computer
whereas competing products may not be. Even if consumers are unaware
that code is commingled, should we be concerned about the market
impact of commingling code? What is the upside of allowing it to be
commingled, and on the other hand, what concerns are raised by
removing the code?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals concluded that Microsoft unlawfully
commingled its operating system and browser code for the purpose of
preventing the removal of its browser. The Court found that this had
the effect of deterring competition not because of the presence of
the Microsoft middleware code, but because of the use of the
middleware by consumers. The proposed Final Judgment fully addresses
the conduct found unlawful by requiring Microsoft to create and
maintain an effective add/remove function for all Microsoft
middleware and to permit competing middleware to take on a
``default'' status that will override middleware functions
Microsoft has integrated into the operating system.
A ban on commingling without regard to competitive significance
would impose a wholly unnecessar5, and artificial constraint on
software design that could have adverse implications for consumers.
Additionally, changes to the operating system required to implement
such a prohibition likely would have adverse effects upon third
parties that have already designed software to the present operating
system code. A prohibition on commingling in this particular case,
therefore, would be harmful, not helpful.
QUESTION
Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts First, how
would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality of
civil antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish? And
second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to dissuade
other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of conduct in
which Microsoft engaged?
ANSWER
It is true that by statute and applicable Supreme Court
precedent, there is no legal basis for ``punishing'' a
civil defendant in a civil antitrust decree. Thus, for example, the
Department cannot impose a civil fine. In agreeing to the proposed
Final Judgment, the Department followed the Court of Appeals''
decision in this case and applicable precedent The Court of Appeals
determined that Microsoft had illegally maintained its operating
system monopoly by engaging in a series of specific anticompetitive
practices While some have argued that the ``fruits'' of
this violation are the continued monopoly in the operating system
market and/or a monopoly in the Web browser market, that is
inconsistent with the Court of Appeals'' decision. In
discussing the scope of an appropriate remedy, the Court of Appeals
noted, ``the District Court expressly did not adopt the
position that Microsoft would have lost its position in the OS
market but for its anticompetitive behavior.'' U.S. v.
Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107 (DC Cir 2001). Further, the Court
reversed the District Court's findings that Microsoft had attempted
to monopolize the Web browser market and engaged in illegal tying.
Consequently, there was no mandate for the Department to strip
Microsoft of its market position in either the operating system or
Web browser markets. The proposed Final Judgment does, however, stop
the unlawful conduct found by the Court of Appeals, prevent its
recurrence and restore the competitive conditions in the middleware
market. The Department believes that the proposed remedy in this
case is strong enough to deter others firms who may engage in the
type of unlawful conduct in which Microsoft engaged
QUESTION
Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's
proposed final judgment because the, didn't believe it adequately
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the
Internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of
such action would be?
ANSWER
The credibility of the antitrust enforcement process requires
the Department to respect the Court's rulings in this case,
including those that were adverse. The Department was unsuccessful
with regard to some of its claims. It would be inappropriate for the
Department to seek remedies designed to redress claims upon which it
was unsuccessful under the guise of claims actually sustained by the
Court.
The sole basis for liability sustained by the Court of Appeals
was monopoly maintenance The monopoly maintenance claim asserted
that Microsoft impeded a ``nascent'' threat to its
operating system monopoly. The Department conceded, and the courts
found, that any actual effect of that conduct on competition in the
operating system market would have occurred well off into the
future, if at all. The courts rejected both the exclusive dealing
and attempted monopolization counts, and reversed the finding of
unlawful tying. In fact, the Court of Appeals found that the
Plaintiffs failed to prove that Web browsers were even a distinct
market. Those were the only government claims asserting
anticompetitive impact or unlawful gain to Microsoft in the market
for Web browsers. Thus, within the confines of this case, there is
no legal basis for asserting that Microsoft's present share in
browsers is a ``fruit'' of its unlawful conduct, and a
remedy requiring disclosure of the source code for Microsoft's
browser, therefore, would be an unfounded expropriation of
Microsoft's intellectual property.
It is not a goal of public antitrust enforcement to restructure
competitive relationships or to secure competitive benefits for
private firms, divorced from a finding of unlawful behavior. Such
action by the Department would be a distortion of the antitrust
enforcement process that would undermine the very goals of the
antitrust laws.
QUESTION
Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system, some
believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede
Microsoft's ability to capture a dominant share of any
[[Page 30267]]
product that it binds to its operating system. Do you believe that
media players, instant messaging services, and other competing
products will be able to compete with similar MS products that are
bound to the operating system?
ANSWER
There are, today, media players and instant messaging services
that compete with similar Microsoft products. The proposed Final
Judgment ensures that competing middleware products, such as media
players and instant messaging software, will have the opportunity to
compete with Microsoft's products. Specifically, the proposed Final
Judgment prohibits Microsoft from impeding consumer choice of
competing middleware products by requiring Microsoft to create and
maintain a mechanism for consumers and computer manufacturers to
replace Microsoft's middleware In this way, the proposed Final
Judgment preserves and reinforces the notion of consumer choice. It
permits consumers to choose between Microsoft and non-Microsoft
middleware and to configure their desktops accordingly.
The proposed Final Judgment provides the opportunity for
middleware products to compete on the competitive merits. If
developers of competing middleware products can generate consumer
patronage by offering superior products at attractive prices,
consumers (and/or the OEMs they purchase from) will select their
products over those offered by Microsoft. Consistent with the goals
of the antitrust laws, however, the proposed Final Judgment provides
the opportunity for the competitive process to determine how well
competing middleware producers fare in the marketplace.
QUESTION
Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it has
loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating as
it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer.
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements''
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating
against computer manufacturers'7
ANSWER
The term ``retaliation'' can be subject to overbroad
interpretation in many contexts, including an antitrust final
judgment. Literally, the term could be read to mean the withholding
of any benefit in response to an undesired action. In a commercial
context, a firm might be said to have ``retaliated''
against a prospective customer or supplier through an adverse action
whether or not their interaction has an5'' competitive
significance For example, if Microsoft decided for valid business
reasons that it no longer wanted to engage in a particular business
transaction, it could be accused of retaliating. To give the term
retaliation meaning in the context of this proposed Final Judgment,
reference must be made to the offending conduct, i.e., actions taken
against firms seeking to develop, promote or distribute competing
middleware.
To amplif3'' upon my answer at the hearing, the proposed
Final Judgment does not, and should not, prohibit Microsoft from
engaging in all forms of collaborative conduct Such a prohibition
would be anticompetitive to the extent that some forms of
collaboration Microsoft might engage in would help in the creation
or distribution of new products for the benefit of consumers. The
proposed Final Judgment prohibits Microsoft from withholding
benefits from those who support competing middleware products, while
permitting the company to grant benefits specifically in the context
of bona fide collaborative ventures under well-established antitrust
standards (which necessarily means ``withholding'' those
same ``benefits'' from companies not engaged in the
particular bona fide collaborative venture).
QUESTION
The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to
competition? What does the DOJ's proposed settlement do to restore
this competition?
ANSWER
As a public antitrust enforcement mechanism, the proposed Final
Judgment does not seek to confer specific strategic or financial
benefits upon specific companies Indeed, the antitrust laws
specifically leave it to private parties to secure that form of
relief in private antitrust actions they file on their own behalf,
and many companies have availed themselves of that opportunity. The
proposed Final Judgment, however, addresses, with respect to all
middleware producers, including Sun Microsystems'' Java, the
conduct that the Court of Appeals found to have impeded the
development and distribution of Java Having eliminated the unlawful
practices, the proposed Final Judgment will allow Sun to compete for
consumer patronage against any similar technology Microsoft might
elect to offer. It would be inappropriate for the Department to
dictate through government mandate consumer choice of a particular
middleware product. Consumer choice, not government decree, should
determine the market result. Requiring Microsoft to distribute Java
with every Microsoft browser would not restore competition to its
previous form; rather, it would give Java a competitive advantage
over other firms'' products.
QUESTION
Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to allow
Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes the
operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility of
a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this
determination?
ANSWER
Definition U. in the proposed Final Judgment ,,,,,ill not
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against
Microsoft. The definition applies only to the duties and obligations
imposed on Microsoft by the proposed Final Judgment. Although the
proposed Final Judgment does not prohibit Microsoft from tying its
products, it does not grant Microsoft any new rights under the
antitrust laws with respect to product integration.
The Department agreed to include this clause in Definition U.
because it merely confirms what Microsoft already had the power to
do--label its own operating system products. This clause does
not negatively impact the operative provisions of the proposed Final
Judgment because they principally rely on other definitions, such as
Microsoft Middleware Product, regardless of how Microsoft labels its
operating system. Moreover, the clause does not affect whether
software that Microsoft chooses to label as part of the package it
calls its ``Windows Operating System Product'' is or is
not a separate ``product'' for antitrust purposes.
QUESTION
Many antitrust cases involve the appointment of a special master
who has some level of enforcement authorit3,. This proposed final
judgment does not do that and instead relies primarily upon standard
civil and criminal contempt proceedings, as well as a special three
person panel. Why has the Division elected not to appoint a special
master that may speed effective enforcement, especially given the
Division's concern for how rapidly this market changes?
ANSWER
Contrary to the premise of the question, there is no history or
tradition of the Department delegating enforcement responsibility
for its antitrust enforcement orders to special masters. The
Department is the public agency entrusted to carry out that function
and has the resources, expertise and public interest focus necessary
to accomplish the task. Moreover, the Department disagrees
fundamentally with the notion that enforcement of the proposed Final
Judgment by a special master would be more efficient or expeditious
in this case. Assuming that the resolution of disputes by a special
master would involve reasonable procedural protections for all
concerned, including a right of judicial appeal, there is no reason
to believe that the special master process would be any less
litigious or time-consuming than enforcement by the Department in
this case, and may in fact introduce even more delay into the
enforcement process.
QUESTION
The Department of Justice has indicated that one motivation for
entering into this settlement was to provide immediate relief and
avoid lengthy court proceedings. At the same time, many of the
provisions of the settlement don't become active for up to 12 months
after the settlement is enacted. Given
[[Page 30268]]
your belief that relief should be immediate, why wait so long for
these provisions to become active?
ANSWER
The only provisions in the proposed Final Judgment that do not
require Microsoft to immediately abide by their terms once the Final
Judgment is in effect are Sections III.D., III.E., and III.H. These
provisions provide Microsoft with a limited amount of time to
implement the company's affirmative obligations because they require
Microsoft to actually redesign its products or establish new
disclosure procedures that will take time to accomplish. In
addition, requiring Microsoft to immediately disclose the unfinished
interfaces for its new products in development in Section III.D.
would actually be detrimental to the market because Microsoft
continuously, changes and improves these interfaces before a product
is finalized. Ira software developer uses interfaces disclosed to it
in its products and the interfaces are subsequently modified, this
may disable both the software product and the operating system.
Giving Microsoft a limited amount of time to implement its duties
under these provisions ensures that they are properly, implemented
QUESTION
One provision of the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft
to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable access to
competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in
the United States within the previous year. This seems to run
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these
protections limited to larger competitors?
ANSWER
Under the proposed Final Judgment, a computer manufacturer will
have the right to install any competing middleware application,
without regard to the number of copies of that competing middleware
that have been distributed. The one million cop, limitation exists
only with respect to the requirements that Microsoft make public the
APIs used in its own middleware products and redesign the operating
system to provide a competing middleware product
``default'' status--i.e., the ability to override
automatically Microsoft middleware functions integrated into the
operating system This limitation strikes the proper balance between
the substantial costs associated with such documentation and
redesign efforts, and the competitive potential of products with
fewer than one million copies distributed. To do otherwise would
have put the operating system in a state of constant flux, which
would have had disastrous implications for users and developers
alike. Moreover, in a world of about 625 million PC users and
software distribution via downloads and direct mail, distribution of
only one million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage,
is a relatively minor threshold in the software industry today As
you know, Americans routinely receive unsolicited software offers
via the mail eye%, day.
SENATOR MCCONNELL'S QUESTIONS
QUESTION
Can you describe how the appeals court ruling impacted the case
originally brought by the Department of Justice in 19987
ANSWER
Not only the Court of Appeals'' ruling, but also the trial
court's earlier determinations disposing of alternative theories of
antitrust liability advanced by the Department of Justice and the
State plaintiffs, significantly impacted the Microsoft case. The
federal government's complaint alleged four specific antitrust
violations: (1) attempted monopolization of the browser market in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) specific
anticompetitive acts, and a course of conduct, to maintain the
operating system monopoly, also in violation of Section 2; (3)
unlawfully tying the Web browser to the operating system in
violation of Section 1; and (4) exclusive dealing in violation of
Section 1. Additionally, the State plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft
employed unlawful monopoly leveraging tactics to move into the
browser market in violation of Section 2 and monopolization with
respect to Microsoft Office. The District Court, however, dismissed
the monopoly leveraging claim prior to trial, and the States
unilaterally dropped their monopolization claim with regard to
Microsoft Office. Following a trial, the District Court ruled for
the government on three of the four claimed violations, but against
it on the exclusive dealing claim. To remedy the violations, the
Court ordered that Microsoft be divided into separate operating
system and applications software businesses, following a one-year
transitional period under interim conduct restrictions.
The Court of Appeals reversed the liability findings with regard
to attempted monopolization and tying, dismissing the former and
remanding the latter for further proceedings under a more rigorous
standard of proof It sustained the finding of monopoly maintenance,
but did so on more limited grounds. Specifically, it reversed the
District Court's finding of a course of conduct, limiting liability
to specific anticompetitive acts, and with regard to the specific
acts, ruled against the government on 8 of the 20 anticompetitive
acts sustained by the District Court that the Court of Appeals
considered. The Court of Appeals also vacated the remedy, in part
because it had so ``drastically'' curtailed the liability
determinations. In discussing the remedy, the Court expressed
substantial skepticism about the propriety of structural relief in
this case and instructed the new judge to tailor the remedy to the
violations affirmed.
The net effect of the District Court's and Court of
Appeals'' rulings was to substantially narrow both the findings
of liability and the bases for relief The courts ruled against the
government with regard to both direct assaults on Microsoft's
practice of integrating new functions into the operating system (the
attempted monopolization and tying claims) and Microsoft's ability
to use the advantages flowing from the operating system monopoly to
enter new markets (the States'' monopoly leveraging claim). The
sole basis for relief became Microsoft's specific
practices--not a course of conduct--to maintain the
operating system monopoly by impeding the development and deployment
of middleware products. The relief in the proposed Final Judgment
effectively addresses these practices by stopping them, preventing
their recurrence and restoring the competitive conditions lost due
to Microsoft's violations.
QUESTION
Can you tell us more about how this agreement came about, or the
process involved in reaching a settlement?
ANSWER
Particularly while Tunney Act review, of the proposed Final
Judgment is pending, it would be inappropriate to discuss the
details of the settlement process. However, the Department can
provide the following general information. On September 28, 2001,
Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into a period of intensive
settlement and mediation discussions to attempt to reach a fair
resolution of the case, commencing on September 28, and expiring on
November 2, 2001, staying all other case activity during that
period. During those five weeks, the Department, certain
representatives for the States, and Microsoft extended every effort
to comply with the Court's order, first privately, and then with
assistance from the mediator appointed by the Court and his partner.
After extensive negotiations, the Department, nine of the Plaintiff
States and Microsoft were able to agree upon a proposed Final
Judgment that would fully, meet the Department's goal of achieving a
prompt, certain and effective-remedy for consumers by imposing
injunctive relief to halt continuance, and prevent recurrence, of
the violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by
the Court of Appeals, and restore the competitive conditions
prevailing prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct. The settling
parties filed a proposed Final Judgment on November 2, 2001, and
then a revised proposed Final Judgment on November 6, 2001, which is
now being considered by the Court pursuant to the Tunney Act.
Before commencing the settlement discussions, the Department
established a set of core principles for resolution of the case,
whether by litigation or consent. Key among them was the concept
that the remedy had to be a comprehensive set of provisions that
would stop the offending conduct and other similar means of
achieving the same result, prevent its recurrence, and restore a
competitive field for the development and deployment of competing
middleware products. Moreover, the relief had to be faithful to the
allegations of the complaint actually sustained by the Court of
Appeals, addressing the conduct the Court had found to be unlawful.
Finally, the remedy had to further the public interest in free and
unfettered competition--not dictate market results and not
necessarily serve the private interests of certain companies.
Settlement occurred when Microsoft was prepared to agree to
comprehensive relief satisfying these principles.
[[Page 30269]]
QUESTION
Some have criticized the agreement for not going far enough. Do
you believe that the proposed settlement compares favorably to-and
in some respects may well exceed-the remedy that might have emerged
from a judicial hearing?
ANSWER
The Microsoft case is a public law enforcement action. The
settlement, therefore, should be judged on whether it remedies the
violations sustained by the Court--not on whether it is
``tough'' on Microsoft or ``goes far enough'' in
addressing the concerns of Microsoft's competitors and critics.
The proposed Final Judgment represents, in substantial measure,
the relief the Department would have proposed and fought for in
court. In a remedies proceeding, however, we would have expected
Microsoft to contest vigorously almost ever5'' provision
extending beyond the literal findings of liability contained in the
Court of Appeals'' decision. We would have fought hard to
obtain this relief, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion that
such relief would have been ordered. A few examples illustrate the
point
The original case identified Web browsers and Java technologies
as potential threats to the operating system Both were broad-based
middleware products with the potential to permit cross-platform
(i.e., multiple operating system) development of a broad range of
application software products. The current crop of middleware
products (e.g., media players and instant messaging systems, etc.)
tend to be category-specific, and are more likely to be platforms
for narrower families of related applications. For this reason,
among others, we would have expected vigorous litigation over the
middleware definition and the need to extend the coverage of the
proposed Final Judgment to products beyond the browser and Java. Our
definition, however, expressly recognizes other middleware products
currently in use (e.g., e-mail client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software) and is broad
enough to include future products that have the potential to
threaten the operating system monopoly.
Microsoft's Windows products employ closed, proprietary
technology. The company is under no general legal obligation to
disclose or license its technology. Moreover, the Court of Appeals
did not sustain any allegation that Microsoft's failure to disclose
or license its technology (generally or, in particular, its
applications program interfaces (``APIs'') or
communications protocols) was, by itself, an act of monopoly
maintenance. Thus, we would have anticipated hotly contested
litigation over the imposition of an affirmative Microsoft
obligation to assist others in developing competing products. In
this regard, Microsoft would have pointed out that tens of thousands
of software programs are developed using the standard APIs disclosed
generally to the software community. The proposed Final Judgment,
however, imposes that obligation as a temporary restorative measure
designed to permit firms to develop competing middleware products
that can compete with Microsoft on a function-by-function basis
As discussed above, the case focused primarily on browsers and
Java technologies The word ``server'' does not appear in
the complaint and appears only in passing in Judge Jackson's
Findings of Fact And, neither the Department nor the plaintiff
States presented evidence at trial that Microsoft had violated the
antitrust laws through conduct related to server software. Thus, we
would have anticipated vigorous opposition to any effort to include
relief with regard to servers in any litigated judgment. Microsoft
would have argued strongly that software that resides on a server,
is not middleware. Our proposed Final Judgment, however, ensures
that independent software vendors will have full access to, and be
able to use, the protocols that are necessary for software located
on a server computer to interoperate with, and fully take advantage
of, the functionality provided by any Windows operating system
product. .
The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to allow
competing middleware products to assume ``default'' status
in the operating system (i.e., selected by the manufacturer or user
and automatically invoked unless countermanded by a manual choice)
and requires the company to make design changes to accomplish that
result. These provisions are important to permit competing
middleware vendors to develop products that are comparable to
Microsoft's in their integration into the operating system. This was
not an issue highlighted when the case initially was brought, and
the Court of Appeals had ruled against the government with regard to
the few specific examples of Microsoft having countermanded a user's
Web browser selection. The default provisions of the proposed Final
Judgment impose costly and continuing redesign obligations upon
Microsoft and likely would have been hotly contested in any
litigation.
As you are aware, the government would have borne the burden of
proof with regard to all remedial questions
The proposed Final Judgment secures immediate relief With regard
to the foregoing issues and perhaps many others, a litigated
resolution most likely would have been subject to additional appeals
taking many months, if not years, including appeals to the Supreme
Court on the liability finding itself.
QUESTION
This litigation has been going on for almost 4 years. Will this
settlement accelerate the point in time at which a remedy will begin
to take effect
ANSWER
Although the proposed Final Judgment must still be reviewed by
the District Court under the Tunney Act process, the remedy
contained in the Final Judgment took effect on December 16, 2001,
pursuant to the stipulation signed by Microsoft to abide by its
terms The remedy applies to Microsoft's conduct nationwide and has a
term of five years Given the substantial likelihood that Microsoft
would have availed itself of all opportunities for appellate review
of any non-consensual judgment, the Department estimated that a
litigated result would not have become final for at least another
two years, and perhaps much later. The remedies contained in the
proposed Final Judgment are not only consistent with the relief that
the Department might have obtained in litigation, but they have the
advantages of immediacy and certainty.
QUESTION
Assuming the settlement is approved by the court, can you
outline the steps that will be taken to ensure compliance with the
settlement
ANSWER
A core team of experienced lawyers and economists established
within our newly formed Networks & Technology Section, and
including members of the litigation team, is charged with
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This enforcement team,
assisted by the technical committee formed under the proposed Final
Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Final
Judgment and take any necessary action, up to and including
initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective enforcement
QUESTION
6. Are you aware of this type of enforcement mechanism being
adopted in any other antitrust proceeding?
ANSWER
The Department is unaware of such a stringent enforcement
mechanism being adopted in any other antitrust proceeding.
SENATOR KOHL'' S QUESTIONS
QUESTION
Mr. James, a unanimous Court of Appeals held that Microsoft has
violated out antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly.
It seems pretty common sense that if we want to fix that violation,
the settlement you are advocating should: (1) end the unlawful
conduct; (2) avoid a recurrence of the violation; and (3) and undo
the anticompetitive consequences of the illegal behavior. Indeed,
the Supreme Court has said that we should ``deny to the
defendant the fruits'' of its illegal conduct. As you know,
when this case was first filed, one of the main problems was that
Microsoft's illegal conduct had nearly driven a competing maker of
Internet browsing software--Netscape Navigator--out of
business. But today, Microsoft has a greater than 85% share of
browsing software. And Netscape is no longer in business as an
independent company and no longer is a serious threat as a competing
platform.
So I have the following questions: how does this proposed
settlement proposal in any way deny Microsoft the gains resulting
from its illegal, anti-competitive conduct? Does it do anything, for
example, to undo Microsoft's victory in the ``browser
wars''?
ANSWER
The sole basis for liability sustained by the Court of Appeals
was maintenance of the monopoly in PC operating systems. The courts
specifically rejected both the exclusive dealing and attempted
monopolization claims, and reversed the tying finding--the
[[Page 30270]]
government claims asserting unlawful gain to Microsoft in the market
for Web browsers. Thus, within the confines of the case as it
exists, there is little or no legal basis for asserting that
Microsoft's present share of the browser market is a
``fruit'' of its unlawful conduct.
Under the monopoly maintenance count, Microsoft benefitted by
impeding the emergence of potential middleware threats to its
operating system monopoly. While recognizing the
``nascent'' threat that Web browsers and Java technologies
posed to the operating system, the Department conceded, and both
courts found, that it was impossible to predict when, if ever, that
threat would materialize as to a degree sufficient to have any
material effect upon competition in the operating system market.
The proposed Final Judgment seeks to restore the middleware
threat as it existed prior to the offending conduct by enjoining
conduct to impede the emergence of competing middleware and by
requiring affirmative steps to aid in the development of such
products. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to give
software developers access to the API's necessary to develop
competing middleware, ensures that those products can gain
distribution in the OEM channel, permits OEMs to feature competing
middleware products, gives third-party middleware
``default'' status comparable to Microsoft's integrated
functions, and prevents Microsoft from retaliating against firms
that develop, promote or distribute competing middleware.
Accordingly, the proposed Final Judgment actually enhances the
opportunities for competing middleware products beyond those
existing prior to the case.
QUESTION
Five years from now do you think it is likely that Microsoft
will still have 95% of the operating system market? If so, should
this concern us?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment is not intended to address
Microsoft's acquisition of its market position in operating systems.
There was never any allegation in the case that Microsoft unlawfully
gained its dominant share in that market. Thus, the proposed Final
Judgment does not require Microsoft to forfeit its market position
in operating systems, but rather ends Microsoft's unlawful conduct,
prevents its recurrence and restores the competitive conditions in
the middleware market. Whether any of these middleware threats will
ultimately lead to the reduction of Microsoft's operating system
market share will be determined by the marketplace. The Department
is unable to speculate as to what Microsoft's share will be in the
future.
QUESTION
We are right now in the middle of the holiday shopping season,
and millions of Americans are going to the computer stores to buy
new computers. When they reach the store, they have a choice of many
different machines made by many different computer manufacturers,
such as Compaq, Dell, Gateway, IBM, and HP, to name a few. But when
it comes to the software that operates the machine they face a very
different picture. With the exception of the machines sold by Apple,
the consumer has no choice but to buy a computer pre-loaded with
Microsoft's Windows operating system. Is there anything in the
proposed settlement agreement likely to change this picture? Why
can't consumers have the same competitive choices in computer
software--specifically operating system software--as they,
have today with respect to deciding which machine to buy?
ANSWER
As stated above, there was never any allegation in the case that
Microsoft unlawfully acquired its dominant share in operating
systems, and the proposed Final Judgment does not address
Microsoft's position in that market. However, the proposed Final
Judgment does ensure that competing middleware products will have
the opportunity to compete and erode Microsoft's operating system
monopoly. The marketplace will determine whether a middleware
product becomes sufficiently ubiquitous to pose such a threat to the
Windows operating system
QUESTION
4.(a).
Critics of the proposed settlement claim it is full of
loopholes, and that these loopholes will make it easy for Microsoft
to evade its terms. I'd like to focus on one thing critics argue is
an unnecessary loophole. The settlement contains an important
provision that lets computer makers load certain types of non-
Microsoft software on their machines without any fear of retaliation
from Microsoft. But Microsoft can retaliate in some instances For
example, only competing software that distributed at least one
million copies in the United States in the last year receives
protection. No such protection is imposed upon competing software
which has distributed less than one million copies.
Commenting on this provision in the Washington Post, James
Barksdale, the founder of Netscape, wrote ``Anyone who
understands the [computer] industry knows this is no protection, for
the new inventor will always be steam-rolled by the powerful
Microsoft. The dreamers and tinkerers whose better mousetrap has not
yet been proved should just close shop. The ultimate losers are the
potential consumers of these lost ideas.'' Why is this
limitation found in the settlement? Won't it be difficult for
software that has not yet been widely distributed to gain a
competitive foothold if Microsoft is not required to allow computer
users and manufacturers access to it on the desktop? And why isn't
Mr. Barksdale right--aren't consumers the losers if Microsoft
is permitted to deny such small, start-up software manufacturers
access to the computer desktop?
ANSWER
Mr. Barksdale's commentary, misstates the one million copy
limitation of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final
Judgment prohibits retaliation by Microsoft related to any
middleware, no matter how many copies are distributed. Furthermore,
under the proposed Final Judgment, a computer manufacturer will have
the right to install any competing middleware application, without
regard to the number of copies of that competing middleware that
have been distributed. The one million copy limitation exists only
with respect to the requirements that Microsoft make public the APIs
used in its own middleware products and redesign the operating
system to provide a competing middleware product
``default'' status--i.e., the ability to override
automatically Microsoft middleware functions integrated into the
operating system The limitation strikes the proper balance between
the substantial costs associated with such documentation and
redesign efforts, and the competitive potential of products with
fewer than one million copies distributed. To do otherwise would
have put the operating system in a state of constant flux, which
would have had disastrous implications for users and developers
alike. Moreover, in a world of about 625 million PC users and
software distribution via downloads and direct mail, distribution of
only one million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage,
is a relatively minor threshold in the software industry today. As
you know, Americans routinely receive unsolicited software offers
via the mail every, day.
QUESTION
4.(b).
Please give specific examples of ``non-Microsoft middleware
products'' (as defined in the proposed consent decree, section
VI.N.) that have distributed at least one million copies in the
United States in the past year, and examples of those that have not.
ANSWER
A few of the examples available of non-Microsoft middleware
products that have distributed at least one million copies in the
U.S. in the past year include Real Network's media player, Real
Player, AOL's ICQ instant messaging product, and Opera, a competing
Web browser.
The Department is unaware of any non-Microsoft middleware
products that distributed less than one million copies in the U.S.
in the past year. As explained in response to Question 4(a) above,
distribution of only one million copies, rather than sales,
installation or usage, is a relatively minor threshold in the
software industry today. Once the terms of the proposed Final
Judgment become known in the market, the producers of smaller
middleware products will be able to target the one million copy
threshold by simply using one of the numerous distribution outlets
available in the market today, for example, direct- mail.
QUESTION
4.(c). What types of research and/or objective methods are used
to measure such distribution today? Which studies or objective
criteria did you use to set the one million dollar mark
ANSWER
Competing middleware providers will be able to ensure that they
can take advantage of the powers granted to them under III.H. of
[[Page 30271]]
the proposed Final Judgment by simply disclosing the number of
copies they have distributed. Distribution numbers are currently
publicly disclosed on the numerous sites available for downloading
such products, including Netcom. The Department considered various
levels of distribution when deciding the appropriate amount. One
million was chosen because it strikes the proper balance between the
substantial costs associated with such documentation and redesign
efforts, and the competitive potential of products with fewer than
one million copies distributed. In fact, one million copies
represents well under 1% of the installed base of Windows desktops
in the U.S.
QUESTION
5 (a).
In the proposed consent decree, with respect to current
products, the definition of Microsoft Middleware Product is locked
into specific products (section VI.K. 1 of the Proposed Final
Judgment). Where it is prospective, the definition of Microsoft
Middleware Product allows Microsoft to avoid its reach if it does
not satisfy all of the elements of the definition (found in section
VI.K2).
Why do you believe this definition is sufficient to restore
competition in the middleware market?
ANSWER
There is no basis for restricting Microsoft's conduct with
respect to all types of software Any restrictions must be limited to
the findings in this case, which were that Microsoft took
exclusionary acts against software with particular
characteristics--software that had the potential to become
platforms for the implementation of other software, thereby
threatening Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Microsoft
Middleware Product definition was carefully crafted to ensure that
it covers future Microsoft products that have the potential to
become such platforms. The definition uses objective criteria that
are not subject to manipulation. Either a product fits the
definition or it does not. If, for whatever reason, it does not fit
the definition, the product will not be one that the proposed Final
Judgment was intended to cover
QUESTION
5 (b)
Why is the definition of middleware in the proposed consent
decree different from the one used by the D.C Circuit Court of
Appeals, or the one used by Judge Jackson in his interim remedy?
ANSWER
The Court of Appeals'' decision did not seek to define the
term middleware in a manner that would suffice for remedial
purposes. Rather, the opinion contains descriptive language to aid
in the exposition of the issues in the case. For remedial purposes,
the definition must be more technical so as to ensure limits within
the terms of the liability found and enforceability of the proposed
Final Judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in
anticompetitive practices with respect to two middleware products,
Web browsers and Java. Those products were deemed to have exposed a
range of APIs so as to have the potential to evolve into an
alternate platform threat, thereby threatening Microsoft's operating
system monopoly. Not all products that expose APIs have that
quality. The proposed Final Judgment adopts a broad definition of
middleware that includes the specific products at issue in this
case, other specific products that already have emerged as potential
alternative platforms, and products that may be developed in the
future that may have similar cross-platform qualities.
The middleware definitions in the proposed Final Judgment are
different than those in Judge Jackson's order because in the
intervening time period the Department refined the definitions to
more accurately reflect the competitive objectives of the judgment
and to take into account changes in the software industry, including
an increased emphasis on downloading as a distribution mechanism
QUESTION
5,(c). Why is MSN Explorer excluded from the current products
that constitute Microsoft Middleware Products in section VI.K 1 of
the Proposed Final Judgment?
ANSWER
MSN Explorer is used largely by consumers who have already
chosen MSN as their Internet service provider or who have chosen
Hotmail for their email. It is marketed more in that context than as
a simple browser. Competitively it has less significance in the
browser market than Internet Explorer.
QUESTION
Many believe Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly to
gain dominance in other types of software products. For example,
five years ago, Microsoft had only about a 20 market share in
Internet browsing software. Today it has an 86 share. Five years
ago, Microsoft had 43% share in word processing software. Today
Microsoft Word software has a 94% market share.
What provisions in the settlement will prevent Microsoft from
gaining dominant market shares in new software products, just as it
has with respect to other types of software?
ANSWER
The concept to which you refer is known in antitrust parlance as
``monopoly leveraging.'' The States included a monopoly
leveraging count in their complaint in this matter. That count,
however, was dismissed by Judge Jackson in pretrial proceedings. U.S
antitrust precedent treats monopoly leveraging claims with much
skepticism. Indeed, as the Court of Appeals noted in rejecting
certain of Judge Jackson's rulings with respect to Java, U.S.
antitrust law does not prohibit a firm, even one with monopoly
power, from using advantages gained in one market to enhance its
position in an adjacent market. Given the Court's rejection of the
monopoly leveraging claim, there is no legal basis in this case for
addressing allegations of monopoly leveraging.
QUESTION
7.(a).
Mr. James, if this settlement is adequate to restore competition
and remedy Microsoft's illegal conduct, why have nine state
attorneys general who initially joined the Justice
Department in suing Microsoft refused to sign on to the
settlement but have instead proposed their own settlement?
ANSWER
The Department cannot speculate on the possible motives of the
various State attorneys general who did not join the settlement.
QUESTION
7.(b)
Are you willing to consider modifications to the proposed
settlement in order to secure the consent of additional state
attorneys general? If so, what modifications would you consider?
ANSWER
The Department believes that the proposed Final Judgment
Full3'' remedies the conduct found unlawful by the Court of
Appeals. The Department, however, will fully comply with the Tunney
Act, including giving due consideration to the public comments
submitted.
QUESTION
8.(a).
The proposed consent decree lasts for only five years (unless a
Court finds Microsoft has engaged in systematic violations of the
decree, in which case it is extended for another two years).
Can you inform me in which past monopoly cases brought by the
government where a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has
been found, the federal courts have limited their conduct remedies
against the monopolist to only five years?
ANSWER
The Department is aware of at least one Section 2 case in which
the government obtained a final judgment that included conduct
remedies that were in effect for five years or less-- U.S. v.
American Airlines, Civil Action No CA 3-83-0325-D, U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Final Judgment
entered on October 31, t985, see 1985-2 Trade Cases 66,866).
QUESTION
8.(b) Why have you limited the remedy to five years in this
case? How can we be sure that the five year term of the settlement
is sufficient to restore competition to this market?
ANSWER
Five years provides sufficient time for the conduct remedies
contained in the proposed Final Judgment to take effect in this
evolving market and to restore competitive conditions to the
greatest extent possible given the conduct at issue in this case.
QUESTION
8.(c) Why do the restraints on Microsoft's conduct in some
instances take as long as one year to go into effect.'?
[[Page 30272]]
ANSWER
The only provisions in the proposed Final Judgment that do not
require Microsoft to immediately abide by their terms once the Final
Judgment is in effect are Sections III.D., III.E., and III.H. These
provisions provide Microsoft with a limited amount of time to
implement the company's duties because they require Microsoft to
actually redesign its products or establish new disclosure
procedures that could take some time to accomplish. In addition,
requiring Microsoft to immediately disclose the unfinished
interfaces for its new products in development in Section III.D.
would actually be detrimental to the market because Microsoft
continuously changes and improves these interfaces before a product
is finalized. If the interfaces are changed after a software
developer uses them in its products, it may disable both the
software product and the operating system Giving Microsoft a limited
amount of time to implement its duties under these provisions
ensures that they are properly implemented
QUESTION
8 (d). How likely, do you think software developers will be to
develop new products based on a decree that will protect them for
only five years?
ANSWER
Five years provides sufficient time for the conduct remedies
contained in the proposed Final Judgment to take effect in this
evolving market and to restore competitive conditions to the
greatest extent possible given the conduct at issue in this case The
marketplace will decide what middleware products will succeed.
QUESTION
8.(e). Will you commit to initiating new investigations and, if
necessary, new court proceedings, if Microsoft behaves in an anti-
competitive manner in the future?
ANSWER
As a law enforcement agency, the Department will continue to
evaluate Microsoft's conduct and take action to remedy
anticompetitive conduct where appropriate.
SENATOR DURBIN'S QUESTIONS
QUESTION
I understand that the Justice Department officials,
representatives of the State Attorneys General, and Microsoft
lawyers worked around the clock to come to an agreement on this
settlement.
How many, meetings were there on the settlement?
ANSWER
The proposed Final Judgment resulted from a process of court-
ordered settlement discussions and mediation, commencing on
September 28, and concluding on November 2, 2001, the deadline
imposed by Judge Kollar-Kotelly. The mediation followed upon about
two weeks of court-ordered, unsupervised discussions among the
Department, counsel for Microsoft and representatives of the
plaintiff States. Although we did not meet continuously, throughout
both periods, there were communications among the parties every day,
in-person or telephonically, and the settlement teams, more often
than not, worked well into the night. The Department, however, did
not maintain an accounting of the number of meetings or
communications during the settlement discussions.
QUESTION
1.B. Were the states sufficiently involved in the process2
ANSWER
Following the Court's September 28th Order, the Department was
advised that the State coordination group would appoint
representatives to participate in the settlement discussions and
that the representatives would report to the larger group through
regular conference calls and other means. Once the mediation
commenced, the States were continuously represented by the states of
Ohio and New York, with Wisconsin actively participating on some
occasions. All three of these states joined in the proposed
settlement.
The Department worked to facilitate the States''
participation in the settlement process Among other things, the
Department permitted the State representatives to work in its case
room, side-by-side with the Department staff State representatives
participated in strategy sessions with the Assistant Attorney
General and other senior representatives from the Department prior
to their joint negotiating sessions. At critical junctures in the
settlement process, the Assistant Attorney General convened
meetings, in-person or via scheduled conference calls, with the
State coordinating group, which meetings were often attended by
several State attorneys general and their staffs or representatives.
Additionally, the Assistant Attorney General maintained regular
telephonic communication with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the
appointed leader of the State plaintiffs. The mediators also took
steps to encourage full participation by each of the States. At the
outset, they inquired as to whether representation of the State
plaintiffs by Ohio, New York and Wisconsin was adequate to ensure
that all the States would be in a position to carry out the Court's
order. The mediators met with the State group separately on several
occasions. In the end, they requested that all interested States
send authorized decision- makers to Washington for the final stages
of mediation.
In short, the States, individually and as a group, were afforded
every opportunity to participate in the settlement process, and did
so on terms they themselves agreed upon. The States had full access
to the process, including all drafts of the settlement documents. At
no time were the States precluded from tendering settlement
proposals or alternative drafts of the settlement provisions of
their own, and in fact, were expressly invited to do so by, both the
mediators and representatives of the Department. As with other
phases of the case, the level of actual State participation varied
widely.
It is not for the Department to opine whether the States
participated sufficiently in the settlement process. We would note
that the States that participated most directly in the process
joined in the proposed Final Judgment, and those that participated
only indirectly or not at all chose not to do so.
QUESTION
Was there anyone in the room during those negotiations who was
not affiliated with the parties to the litigation who may have been
able to bring another perspective on the terms of the agreement?
ANSWER
The court-ordered settlement discussions that were conducted
prior to the appointment of the mediators on October 12, 2001, did
not include individuals unaffiliated with the parties to the
litigation. The only persons present during the settlement
discussions after October 12 who were not affiliated with a party
were the Court-appointed mediator, Eric Green, and his partner,
Jonathan Marks.
QUESTION
Now that we are in the 60-day period of the Tunney Act
proceeding to determine the public interest aspects of this
settlement; what, if any, role do you envision Congress should play?
ANSWER
The Department would not presume to tell Congress what, if any,
role it should play with regard to Tunney Act review of the proposed
Final Judgment.
QUESTION
Microsoft is about to settle with about half the states who
joined in the original DOJ lawsuit, but the other half of the states
are continuing with the court-issued remedies phase of the
litigation. Naturally, there may be differences in the remedies in
the two different vehicles for closing out this case. How will you
reconcile the potential differences between the terms of the
settlement accepted by the nine settling state plaintiffs and the
remedies to be awarded to the ten non-settling state plaintiffs?
ANSWER
In any multiple-plaintiff litigation, there is the possibility
of different, perhaps conflicting, remedies. In private antitrust
litigation, where the issue is monetary recovery or the rights of
individual companies, disparate outcomes may be manageable. The
Microsoft case, however, presents a circumstance in which both the
federal government and several state governments are purporting to
litigate substantially identical substantive allegations and seeking
injunctive relief that would have national public policy
implications, affecting the rights of consumers and producers
nationwide. With the states increasingly opting to pursue antitrust
cases following upon charges already being litigated by the federal
antitrust enforcement agencies, the risk of conflicting or
inconsistent remedies is always present. In multiple-plaintiff
cases, the courts and parties typically undertake to prevent such
conflicts from occurring. All par-ties, of course, would be bound by
the orders of the court, and meaningful conflicts could become the
source of future litigation. The Department believes that the
proposed Final Judgment represents a full and
[[Page 30273]]
complete resolution of the violations sustained by the Court of
Appeals and that entry of the proposed Final Judgment is strongly in
the public interest Whether or not conflicts emerge, as the agency
charged with ensuring that the federal antitrust laws are duly
enforced for the benefit of all Americans and the U.S. economy as a
whole, the Department will do all in its power to ensure full
compliance with the proposed Final Judgment and to protect the
antitrust enforcement process itself.
Answers to Written Questions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee,
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
Lawrence Lessig
Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HATCH
1. In your book, you make the case for keeping the Internet
``neutral and open.'' Could you briefly describe the
danger that you foresee, in both a competition and a larger policy
context, as consumers migrate to higher capacity connections from
our current narrowband connections?
The broadband policy of the current administration will weaken
the environment for innovation on the Internet, because current
policy will balkanize the Internet, and hinder the opportunity for
outsiders to compete.
As consumers move from narrowband to broadband, the legal rules
governing at least part of the network are changing. The narrowband
Internet was governed by rules that required neutrality by the
network owners over the use of the Internet. The broadband Internet
will be governed by rules that increasingly allow the network owners
to pick and choose the kind of innovation and content that the
network will carry. This change in legal rules will shift the locus
of innovation from the edge of the network to the center--away
from the broad range of creators and innovators that have built the
Internet so far, to the relatively few who own or who control the
network. What runs well on this Internet will increasingly depend
upon who the network owner is. These changes are said to be
necessary in order to support the building of the national
information super highway. In my view, Congress should weigh this
claim much more carefully. It is true that giving broadband
providers this power to discriminate will increase their incentive
to build broadband pipes. But before we sell the soul of the
Internet to the network owners, a much stronger showing of need
should be made. We didn't give GM the right to build the interstate
highway system in exchange for GM's right to build the roads to
favor GM trucks. Nor should we sell the Internet to broadband
providers in exchange for their right to favor some content over
others, or choose which applications will define the Internet of the
future. In both cases, the strong presumption should be in favor of
neutrality. Congress should weigh the costs of corrupting this
principle of neutrality before it endorses a policy that permits
this rearchitecting of the Internet's core.
2. One concern I have consistently raised elsewhere, including
in merger and monopolization contexts, has been possible limitations
being placed on consumer freedom by an access provider, whether an
Internet service provider, a cable company, a satellite company, or
another Internet access facilitator. Is there is a legitimate fear
that an Internet mediator might--for one reason or
another--decide to limit access to certain sites or drive
traffic to other specified sites? If so, what do you believe to be
the best method of safeguarding and preserving the freedom of the
Internet? It is right to be concerned that access providers will
wrongfully constrain consumer freedom. Technology companies have
already developed router technology to enable network owners to
choose which content will flow quickly, and which content will flow
slowly. This technology could enable the blocking of some content,
or the disabling of some applications. Cable companies carrying
Internet content have already indicated their intent to implement
these technologies. And there is nothing this administration is
doing that would slow this trend.
The concern about neutral access to the Internet is similar to
the concern about access to satellite or cable broadcasts generally.
But I believe it is a mistake to equate the two. The harm to
innovation and creativity from restrictions to the Internet is more
fundamental than the harms caused by restrictions to entertainment.
The reason is that access to entertainment competes directly
with many other channels of entertainment. If the choice on cable
television is too narrow, then Blockbuster or Netflix provides
useful competition. If satellite stations become too expensive, then
cable television, or broadcast television-- or maybe even a
book!--continue to compete. At some point concentration in
these channels is a concern, as Jack Valenti has powerfully and
rightly testified to Congress.\1\ But that is different from the
concern I have about the Internet. The Internet is not just, or not
only, another way to be entertained. It is instead a platform that
will support the broadest opportunity for social and democratic
engagement. The Internet is a public street, or park, or library,
not a Movieplex. Restrictions on access and control of the Internet
are like restrictions on access to the public streets, not like
choices Sony Pictures makes about what will run in first-run
theatres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Media Ownership: Diversity and
Concentration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Communications of the
Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 101st Cong.
611 (1989) (statement of Jack Valenti, President and CEO, MPAA).at
611 (``Therefore, in this free and loving land in which we
live, our government ought never allow any tiny group of corporate
chieftains or corporate entities, no matter how beignly managed, to
ever reassert full dominion over prime time television, which is the
most pervasive moral, social, political and cultural force in this
country.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, in my view, you have been right to be concerned about
restrictions on access in the context of cable and satellite
delivery of entertainment and news. And you have been right to be
concerned that citizens generally have access to news about matters
of public import. But there is an even stronger reason for you to be
concerned with restrictions on access in the context of the
Internet. Much more is at stake.
I am not certain about the best remedy to this non-neutrality.
Network owners have a legitimate interest in selling different
levels of service; the market should be allowed to experiment with
different modes of delivery. Where there are many different
competitors offering comparable broadband service, there is little
role for government. But where competition is not adequate, then
there is an oversight role for government.
``Open access'' requirements are one indirect response
to the absence of competition. Alternatively, a simple requirement
that any Internet service be implemented neutrally may suffice to
remedy any anticompetitive threat.
3. As you know, on the Internet, anyone can self-publish their
music, their artwork, Lessig: Testimony January 15, 2002 their
writings, and those who are interested in those works can have
access to them, and neither the creator nor the consumer necessarily
need the mediation of a publisher. Works that are important to a
few, but cannot make it in a traditional publishing context, have a
place for their fans on the Internet. I have said elsewhere that it
would be a great shame if the wide-open access available on the
Internet were narrowed down in the way the offline world often is.
Could you please explain who you believe should choose where a
consumer can go online, the consumer or the Internet mediator, be it
an Internet service provider, a software company, or a cable or
satellite company, and could you explain why this is an important
question?
Losing the freedom of choice that the original architecture of
the Internet guaranteed would be far more than a ``great
shame.'' Losing the freedom of choice that the original
architecture of the Internet guaranteed would be a betrayal of the
values of free speech and competition that define our political and
social culture.
The original architecture of the Internet showed the world how a
decentralized, market- based, neutral platform for innovation could
enable the broadest range of creators to produce and exchange
creative work. This was not the speculation of some utopian academic
or technologist. The early Internet made this possibility a reality,
and none can deny the opportunity it created. Lessig: Testimony
January 15, 2002
This reality is being changed now, as the original architectural
principles of the Internet become corrupted by network owners. As
the Internet moves to broadband technology, broadband providers are
changing the effective architecture of the original network to re-
vest in them control over how innovation on this network proceeds.
The original Internet vested that control in consumers and
innovators; the new Internet will return that control to the network
owners.
This change is happening because government policy encourages it
to happen. We are selling the soul of the Internet to network
providers because the network providers have convinced policy makers
that this is the only way to build out a broadband network.
[[Page 30274]]
The network providers in my view are wrong. The policy makers
who follow them are misguided. But at a minimum, whether you believe
they are wrong or not, Congress has yet to consider the full cost of
this corruption in the Internet's core.
I believe fundamentally in the freedom of a network where the
people, not, as you rightly describe it, ``a network
mediator,'' choose the future. That freedom is the original
Internet, which because of its ``end to end'' design,
assured that citizens, not network mediators, controlled how the
network developed. There is no good justification for permitting
network providers the power to corrupt that original freedom. Yet
this is precisely what current administration policy is allowing.
You have been an admirable advocate of balance, Senator Hatch.
That balance is just what is needed now in this debate over the
network's future.
QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DEWINE
1. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an appropriate
remedy should try and steer Microsoft toward developing its strategy
in regards to the Internet. First, why wouldn't such an objective
fall outside the clear confines of the case and thus be an
inappropriate goal for a remedy? And second, given the fact that a
court found Microsoft to have engaged in significant violations of
the antitrust laws, should we be concerned about the company
attempting to leverage its operating system monopoly to become
dominant at the Internet level?
If this market were stable, and technological progress slow,
then it would be appropriate to confine a remedy to the
retrospective harm caused by the illegal behavior of Microsoft. But
this market is neither stable, and fortunately, progress is not
slow. Instead, the particular wrongs that Microsoft was found guilty
of are essentially irrelevant to the current competitive context.
Forcing a remedy with respect to these alone would neither
``1unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive conduct,''
`terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the
fruits of its statutory violation,''' nor
```ensure that there remain no practices likely to result
in monopolization in the future.''' United States v.
Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 54, 103 (DC Cir 2001).
It is for this reason that I believe that the essence of an
appropriate remedy must look forward, and ask how best to steer
Microsoft in a pro-competitive direction. Given the findings of
liability by the District Court, and the pattern of behavior that
they affirm, I do believe that you should be worried that Microsoft
will try to protect its OS monopoly by leveraging it to control at
the Internet level. But as I describe more fully in my written
testimony, I also believe that there is a strategy that Microsoft
could adopt that would not threaten competition at the Internet
level, but could instead strengthen it. If a remedy could steer
Microsoft to adopt this competitively benign strategy, that remedy
would be a crucial gain for competition generally--even if it
did not fully right the wrongs caused in the past.
2. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an integral
part of the Court's conclusion was its finding that Microsoft had
``commingled code'' in such a way as to interfere with the
ability of competitors to compete on an even playing field. Do you
believe the Justice Department's proposed final judgment adequately
deals with this anticompetitive conduct?
I do not believe the proposed final judgment is responsive to
this concern. The Court of Appeals recognized a second and important
way in which a monopoly firm in a technology market can improperly
use its power to inhibit competition. Not only can such a firm use
contracts to restrain competition, it can also use computer code to
constrain competition. The essence of the District Court's finding
was that Microsoft had used its code strategically to disable or
hinder competition rather than to give consumers a better choice.
That finding was twice upheld by the Court of Appeals--both in
its initial opinion, and it the opinion rejecting Microsoft's
petition for rehearing.
I am particularly concerned that this aspect of the case is now
being ignored by the government. In a recent interview with the Wall
Street Journal, for example, Assistant Attorney General Charles
James is reported to have said, in response to the observation that
``various Internet features are woven more deeply into Windows,
offering consumers such benefits as one-click access to the Internet
from electronic mail,''\2\ ``How would consumers be served
if we forced Microsoft to remove that code? ... The market has
changed.''
This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the
issues in this case as it was litigated and decided by the District
Court. No one has ever questioned Microsoft's right to include code
that would enable better functionality--in this case, the
ability of a user to link from an email message to a browser. The
only issue has been the decision by Microsoft to use its power over
its code to inhibit consumer choice of which browser. Microsoft has
consistently argued that it did not interfere with consumer choice.
The District Court and Court of Appeals found to the contrary. See,
e.g., Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 66. And in rejecting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ John Wilke, Hard Drive: Negotiating All Night,
Tenacious Microsoft Won Many Loopholes, Wall Street Journal, Al (11/
9/01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft's request for rehearing about the ``commingled
code'' finding, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed a central
aspect of the case: That Microsoft had used its power to design its
code in a way that restricted consumer choice without any
compensating competitive benefit.
Nothing in the proposed remedy directly addresses this concern.
But more troubling to me is that the government seems no longer to
even understand it. After convincing a district and appellate court
of its view about Microsoft's behavior, the government seems now to
have adopted Microsoft's view of its behavior. I have seen no
justification offered by the government for this reversal on a
central element of its case.
3. Mr. Lessig, you mention that there are problems with the
proposed decree aside from enforcement. What are some of the other
areas of concern?
As I have just mentioned, the failure of the decree adequately
to address ``commingled code'' is a significant problem. I
also believe the failure to require disclosure in the context of
security protocols is a significant weakness, as is the failure of
the decree fully to define ``retaliation.''
These weaknesses have been adequately described, in my view, in
the Nine Remaining States'' December 7th filing with the
district court. Except for the questions that I have raised about
that filing in my written testimony, I agree generally with the
concerns raised by those states.
4. Mr. Lessig, what do you believe are the appropriate
objectives of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you
believe the case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition
cases should be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases?
Finally, do you believe this settlement fully achieves the
appropriate remedy objectives? If not, in what way is it deficient?
As the Court of Appeals rightly indicated, the objective of a
remedy in a monopolization case is extremely broad. Microsoft, 253
F.3d at 103. In general terms, its aim is to recover from the
monopolist the fruits of its illegal activity, and assure it can no
longer benefit from those illegal gains.
In my view, it is impossible fully to achieve these results in a
context where technologies are changing rapidly. The problem is much
like trying to remedy any harm caused by the choice of the QWERTY
keyboard--at this point too much has been built on the
underlying technology, and any remedy that seeks to completely undo
what has been done would be more costly than beneficial.
Thus, I think the appropriate distinction for the court to focus
is not between monopoly acquisition and monopoly maintenance cases,
but between cases where technology is relatively stable, and cases
where it is changing quickly. As I've indicated, I don't believe the
current remedy achieves the appropriate objectives, given the nature
of the changes in the underlying technology.
QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KOHL
1. Professor Lessig, do you believe this settlement is adequate
to restore competition in the computer software industry? Why or why
not?
The settlement is not adequate to restore competition in the
computer software industry. Because the settlement has no effective
mechanism for enforcement, it tempts Microsoft to continue the
strategic behavior that the District Court and the Court of Appeals
found violated the antitrust laws. As this case demonstrates, if it
takes four years for Microsoft to ``understand the
[government's] concerns,'' Statement by Bill Gates, November 6,
2001, then by the time Microsoft gets it, the harm is already done.
2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
As I indicated to Senator Dewine, I do believe that there should
be additional restrictions on Microsoft's conduct, especially
relating to Microsoft's ability to ``commingle code.'' But
those additional
[[Page 30275]]
restrictions are secondary to an effective mechanism to enforce the
decree. As I indicated in my written testimony, without an effective
enforcement mechanism, the balance of the restrictions are
irrelevant, and with an effective enforcement mechanism, the
weaknesses in the restrictions may not matter.
2. (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
The central weakness in the decree is its failure to include an
adequate mechanism to enforce the decree. Given the slowness of
federal court intervention, the decree creates an effective and
continuing incentive for Microsoft to behave anti-competitively. If
there were an effective enforcement mechanism (such as an adequately
empowered special master), then that incentive would disappear.
3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with
respect to software which has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned with this limitation?
I am. I do not see what legitimate interest the limitation
serves. The aim of the decree generally is to enable Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) autonomy--to enlist OEMs in the
competitive process of deciding what bundle of software makes most
sense for the consumer. Any burden from new software bundled with an
operating system is borne by OEMs, not Microsoft. By establishing
that OEMs only have the right to bundle new software if 1,000,000
consumers have downloaded that software on its own, the decree
significantly reduces the incentive OEMs have to discover and
distribute new, competitive software. This is a significant loss in
potential competition that does not, in my view, have any justifying
benefit.
January10, 2002
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6275
Dear Chairman Leahy:
Thank you very, much for the opportunity to respond to written
questions from the members of the United States Senate Judiciary
Committee. My written responses are attached.
We appreciate the Committee's attention to this matter. Please
let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Kertzman
Chief Executive Officer
Cc:: Nicolle Puopolo
Senate Judiciary Committee
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: 202.224.9516
nicolle [email protected]
Date: 1/10/2002 10:43 AM
Sender: Mark Webbink
To: nicolle puopolo
Priority: Normal
Subject: Microsoft Hearing--Written Questions--Responses
of Matthew
Dear Nicolle,
Attached are the responses provided by Matthew Szulik, President
and CEO of Red Hat, Inc., to those written questions submitted by
Senator Leahy in his letter of December 19. I am forwarding a hard
copy by Federal Express which you should receive tomorrow.
Mark Webbink
Sr. VP and General Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
Response to Written Questions
United States Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing regarding ``The Microsoft Settlement:
Future''
December 12, 2001
A Look to the
Hatch #1
The nine states have chosen to litigate for substantially more
than the settlement offers. Commentary that presupposes that the
judge will rule against the nine attorneys general in the pending
case is tantamount to a request for a denial of due process.
In the recent hearing in which Judge Kollar denied Microsoft an
extension of time in which to hear the proposed alternative remedies
of the nine states, Judge Kollar also found the proposed alternative
remedies to be within the scope of remedies permitted under the
order of the Court of Appeals.
The fact remains that the settlement has many substantial
structural flaws, each of which can be used independently to
circumvent the intended remedy, and all of which together provide
Microsoft with a range of options for continuing their abusive
behavior and extending their monopoly further. We believe it is
vital, not just for the states and the people they represent, but to
the technology industry as a whole, that Microsoft not create a
monoculture that can collapse catastrophically, but that competition
be preserved, so that no single failure can destroy everything. The
fact that further consideration of this matter may take an
additional two months or two years should not override the public's
interest in having Microsoft behave in a legally permissable manner.
Hatch #2
Absolutely. The first issue is to address the obvious technical
loopholes and structural flaws that have been identified, as well as
to review a revised settlement to address the states'' primary
concerns:
1. Will Microsoft agree to alter its behavior and cease to
stifle innovation and competition by abusing its monopoly? And,
2. Will the settlement offer sufficient powers to enforce
actions against Microsoft if it violates the terms of the
settlement?
Clearly, Microsoft has settled before, and clearly those
settlements proved completely ineffective. No attorney general can,
in good conscience, agree to a settlement that will lead to
continued abuse through lack of sufficient prescriptions or lack of
sufficient enforcement, or both. There are a substantial number of
legal authorities who believe that the remedies contained in the
Proposed Final Judgment will do nothing but prompt another round of
litigation in the future due to their ineffectiveness.
Hatch #3
A prompt settlement that does nothing except to remove the case
from the court will accomplish nothing. The imperfections of the
current settlement are so great that we believe it to offer nothing
whatsoever to any damaged party, period. As written, the settlement
will give Microsoft another 5 year ticket to extend and abuse its
monopoly position, and will be an even more formidable adversary 5
years hence. One must also consider why this litigation has been so
long in coming to a resolution. That burden does not lie on the
Department of Justice and the states. Rather it lies on Microsoft
for delaying, albeit within the scope of due process, the resolution
of the matter. Our government must have the fortitude to see such
matters through to a full and proper conclusion, not cave in to a
delaying action intended to exhaust patience.
DeWine #1
The comingling question focuses on a specific symptom, not the
root cause. The root cause is that Microsoft is able to use
technical means to create de facto standards. Such standards, when
placed strategically, are the seeds to future monopoly positions.
Debating the issues of comingling and removal of code can shed light
on the subject, but only give us a shadow view of the true
questions. We believe that remedies proposed by the nine snares
about providing documentation, licenses, and in some cases, source
code, provides the kinds of remedies which can then be debated in
the context of comingling vs. third-party software.
DeWine #2
The current Proposed Final Judgement offers nothing to foster
innovation and competition in the market of commercial operating
systems. In fact, it may do quite the contrary. During the entire
litigation, Microsoft has been a significantly less fierce
competitor than they might otherwise have been. If the Proposed
Final Judgment is imposed on all parties without modification, it
will actually sanction Microsoft's past abusive behavior, and there
will be nothing to stop Microsoft from escalating their
anticompetitive behavior while remaining within the guidelines of
the Proposed Final Judgement. The proposal offered by the litigating
states, on the other hand, offers true structural remedies and
strong enforcement, creating an environment that will foster
innovation and competition, increasing the ability of all technology
companies, to invest with greater confidence that they are doing so
in a fair and free market environment.
Kohl #1
Not at all. The settlement contains technical and structural
loopholes that legitimize, rather than remedy, Microsoft's abusive
monopoly. For example, sectiona III J.1 and III J.2 both grant
Microsoft sole discretion to determine the applicability of the
settlement to its own business practices where such practices have
in the past been used to extend and abuse monopoly power.
[[Page 30276]]
Thus, the settlement is little more than an opportunity for
Microsoft to change its own behavior based on its conscience, not a
proscription from the courts. Microsoft has demonstrated, in the
case of previous settlements, that they are already acting out their
conscience and that the technology industry, the states, and the
public are not safe from such actions.
Kohl #2 (a and b)
We are strongly supportive of the nine states''
comprehensive alternative to the proposed settlement. We believe
that the Proposed Final Judgment as currently drafted cannot easily
be fixed by simply fixing errors and ommisions, instead, a
comprehesive alternative, written by the plaintiffs rather than the
defendant, should be considered.
Kohl #3
There are over 100,000 software companies in existence today
(source: Craig Mundie, Microsoft SVP of Advanced Development
debating Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann at the O'Reilly Open Source
Conference, July 2001), yet only 500 software companies in the
Software 500. Of those 500, the vast majority ship fewer than one
million copies of anything. Thus, setting the bar at one million
copies excludes more than 99.9% of all software companies from
receiving any relief whatsoever with respect to this part of the
settlement. Of course, several other parts of the settlement also
allow Microsoft to further expand and abuse their monopoly position,
so the question by itself is more symptomatic rather than
fundamental.
Kohl #4
This Proposed Final Judgment will make it harder, not easier to
compete, because it will legitimize, rather than remedy Microsoft's
abusive behavior. While we believe that on a daily basis Microsoft
behaves in ways inconsistent with this settlement (using retaliation
or threats of retaliation or coercion against protected classes
defined by the settlement), they have been somewhat restrained while
the litigation has been pending, if the settlement is accepted,
Microsoft will be able to continue the expansion and abuse of their
monopoly with impunity, because the settlement actually allows that]
Yes, they may have to change some behavior, but fundamentally the
proposed settlement gives them all they need to maintain their
current status quo. Further litigation is a very expensive way to
reduce a defendant's capacity to do further damage, and we would
certainly prefer a settlement that actually addresses and remedies
Microsoft's abuses. But as written, this proposed settlement
addresses and remedies nothing of substance, while giving Microsoft
the ``all clear'' to resume its unhealthy control of
innovation and competition. It should be of interest that Red Hat,
in markets where Microsoft does not enjoy a monopoly, has been able
to compete on technology, performance, and cost. At the same time,
Red Hat has elected not to enter the Intel-platform based desktop
market, viewing such an effort as futile given Microsoft's monopoly
position. Nothing in the Proposed Final Judgment would cause Red Hat
to alter that position.
Received: from mailsimsl.senate.gov ([156.33.203.10]) by
ailexch.senate.gov with SMTP
(IMA internet Exchange 3.13) id 000A2E2B; Thu, 10 Jan 2002
10:43:33 -0500Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com by
mailsimsl.senate.gov (Sun Internet Mail Server
sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with SMTP id
<[email protected]> for
[email protected];
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:45:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from redhat.com (mwebbink.meridian.redhat.com
[172.16.45.141]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with
ESMTP id g0AFhNw24650 for
; Thu, 10
Jan 2002 10:43:23 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:43:28 -0500
From: Mark Webbink
Subject: Microsoft Hearing--Written Questions--Responses
of Matthew
Szulik
To: [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED;
BOUNDARY=''Boundary--(ID--hOVX+e/hb79ikvpiSed5
-W)''
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5)
Gecko/2001t012
X-Accept-Language: en-us
Responses of Charles F. Rule to Judiciary Committee Questions
Leahy Questions
Q1. In your 1997 testimony on the first Microsoft-Department of
Justice consent decree, you said that ``it seems a bit
shortsighted (or perhaps even hysterical) to believe that Microsoft
is such a juggernaut that putting extra sand in its saddle bags is
justified to even up the odds for the competition.'' In light
of the fact that the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, abusing its operating system monopoly
to the detriment of consumers, do you still believe that it is
``hysterical'' to inquire into, and seek to end, the
company'santicompetitive practices?
A. As you note, the statement in my 1997 testimony refers to the
enforcement action brought by the government alleging that Microsoft
had violated the terms of its 1995 consent decree. Microsoft was
ultimately vindicated in that action, with the Court of Appeals
finding that Microsoft had done nothing to violate the terms of that
decree. In this most recent action, the Court of Appeals did
conclude that certain of Microsoft's practices amounted to monopoly
maintenance that violates section 2 and, as my statement to the
Committee in December of 2001 explains, the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment addresses all that conduct and much more. Having said that,
it is worth noting, first, that the Department and states have never
alleged, much less proved, that Microsoft achieved its position in
the market illegally. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals held,
``the District Court expressly did not adopt the position that
Microsoft would have lost its position in the OS market but for its
anticompetitive behavior.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
253 F.3d 34, 107 (3d Cir. 2001). Second, no matter how one chooses
to characterize Microsoft's (or any other company's) competitive
prowess, it is never appropriate for the antitrust law--nor is
it good policy generally--to put ``sand in the saddle
bags'' of one competitor simply because it is more successful
for reasons of skill, foresight or luck. Prohibiting companies from
engaging in illegal practices and requiring them to compete on the
merits is clearly critical, but ``rigging'' or trying to
alter outcomes of competition on the merits is a bad idea.
Q2. The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the
district court ``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 such proposal, except that
any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone
shall be excluded from the requirements of this subsection.''
You have recently been named as counsel of record,'' do you
believe that this provision requires disclosure of communications by
you to the Justice Department prior to the date upon which you
became counsel of record? Do you believe it requires disclosure of
contacts made on behalf of Microsoft to members of Congress? How do
you define power in a way that would be very difficult for courts to
redress in the future without recourse to draconian structural
relief. Finally, as we saw with the 1995 consent decree, having a
seriously flawed settlement can sometimes be worse than having no
settlement at all, insofar as it lulls enforcement agencies and the
public into a false belief that anticompetitive conduct has been
checked while it m fact continues, compounding the under1ying
problems in the marketplace. Some in the industry have argued that
but for the pendency of the current litigation, and the public and
judicial scrutiny that resulted, Microsoft's conduct in the
marketplace would have been even worse.
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Do
you believe that it covers anything more than the actual
negotiations of the decree?
A. First, I personally have been counsel of record for Microsoft
since the appeals of Judge Jackson's decision began in 1999. (For
those interested, they should review the briefs filed with the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.) Moreover, since Microsoft's
negotiations with the Department of Justice included representatives
of the Plaintiff states, the Tunney Act disclosure includes
disclosure of all the negotiations of which I was a part.
Second, the Tunney Act only requires disclosure of contacts with
the Executive Branch. To my knowledge, disclosure filings in Tunney
Act proceedings (including AT&T's disclosure, for example) are
limited to contacts with the Executive Branch.
Third, there is no reason to believe that the phrase
``concerning or relevant to'' has any
[[Page 30277]]
meaning other than the standard definition of the words. Webster's
New Collegiate Dictionary indicates that ``relating to''
and ``regarding'' are synonymous for
``concerning.'' ``Relevant'' is defined as
``having significant and demonstrable bearing upon the matter
at hand.'' Accordingly, and consistent with the plain meaning
of all the words of the statutory provision you quote, Microsoft's
disclosure included reportable contacts by Microsoft or its
representatives with the Executive Branch that related to the
company's negotiations of the settlement with the Department and the
Plaintiff states.
Q3. Microsoft's retaliation against 0EMs that resisted carrying
Microsoft's products featured largely in the evidence at trial, and
the proposed settlement seems to address the Court of Appeals''
holding that such retaliation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
While the settlement does state that Microsoft cannot retaliate
against an OEM that is supporting a competing operating system or
middleware there is also a ``carve-out'' to that
restriction, which permits Microsoft to provide ``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.'' This seems to permit
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry Microsoft's
products or software; this is just the flip side of
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands ?
A. It is important to note that the Court of Appeals did not
conclude that Microsoft ``retaliated'' against any OEM for
shipping any competing software (or for any other reason). Moreover,
the anti-retaliation provisions of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment contain no ``carve-outs.'' Rather, Microsoft may
not retaliate against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs (independent hardware
vendors) because they develop, etc., software that competes with the
Windows PC operating systems or Microsoft Middleware. The provision
prohibits ``retaliation'' as that word is commonly
understood and defined. The provisos in the relevant sections of the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment do not ``carve-out''
exceptional circumstances in which Microsoft may retaliate against
these third parties for their development, etc., of competing
software; rather, those provisos simply make certain that in the
future no one will try to extend the prohibition to certain conduct
that is legitimate and not generally understood to be
``retaliation.'' So for example, the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment is written to ensure that it will not be possible to
twist the common meaning of ``retaliation'' to cover
situations in which Microsoft seeks legitimately to protect its
intellectual property against infringement. The decree also makes
clear that legitimate efforts by Microsoft to enforce a contract,
including through rights of termination against an OEM that has
breached the contract by, for example, refusing to pay royalties due
and owing to Microsoft, though Microsoft agreed that it would give
an OEM an offer to cure any breach at least two times during the
term of the contract (which currently is one {time} ,ear) are
allowed under the Revised Proposed Final Judgment.
Also, as your question indicates, the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment makes clear that Microsoft is not ``retaliating''
if it provides ten times more marketing support to one OEM than to
another OEM that ships only one-tenth the number of Windows
operating systems compared to the first OEM. The notion that
Microsoft has to provide the same level of support to all third
parties without regard to the level of development, distribution,
promotion or licensing of Microsoft's products or even without
regard to whether they carry Microsoft's products or software at all
seems absurd. One doubts that OEMs like Dell and Compaq that each
year sell millions of PCs installed with a Windows PC operating
system would think it fair and reasonable if Microsoft could provide
them with no more support than a small OEM in East Asia that
installs Windows on none of its PCs. Even without regard to the
fairness and reasonableness of such decisions, decisions concerning
the allocation of finite resources are what every business,
regardless of its size, legitimately must make. It renders the word
``retaliation'' meaningless to suggest that such
legitimate decisions would be proscribed by an ``anti-
retaliation'' provision. However, the fact that Microsoft's
competitors would even make such a suggestion indicates why the
company negotiated for, and why the Department and settling states
agreed to, the clarification.
Q4. Microsoft is given 12 months to come into compliance with
this proposed settlement; what tasks must it actually undertake that
will require so much time?
A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment does not become binding
and the court's powers of enforcement do not pertain until the court
enters the judgment (hence the Department's concern, as we
understand it, that the Tunney Act proceeding not be delayed).
Nevertheless, Microsoft has stipulated that it will abide by the
terms of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment from the date it was
submitted to the court for approval. The stipulation did give
Microsoft until December 16, 2001, to begin its voluntary compliance
with the Revised Proposed Final Judgment; however, with the
exception of three substantive provisions of the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment which require substantial engineering work, Microsoft
is currently complying with the provisions of the decree. With the
exception of the creation of the Technical Committee (IV.B) and the
term of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (i.e., when it will
expire) (the timing of both is measured from the date the decree is
entered by the court), the clock begins to run on Microsoft's
obligation to implement the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment on the date it was submitted to the court (i.e., November
6, 2001).
With respect to the three substantive sections that have not yet
become effective, namely sections III.D, III.E, and III.H., all
three require Microsoft to engage in substantial engineering work.
That work is currently well underway.
In order to comply with section III.D., which requires Microsoft
to disclose APIs and related Documentation used by Microsoft
Middleware to interoperate with Windows 2000 or Windows XP (and
subsequent versions of PC operating systems), Microsoft must do
substantial work to identify the relevant interfaces, determine
whether they have already been disclosed and, if not, develop the
necessary documentation so third parties will understand what
functions they perform and how to use them. Microsoft must disclose
the APIs and documentation when it releases the first Service Pack
for Windows XP.
Microsoft may also be required to reengineer Microsoft
Middleware, as well as Windows 2000 and Windows XP in order to
comply with III.D. Because Microsoft has strong commercial
incentives to issue the first Service Pack of a new operating system
as soon as possible and delay of its issuance (and thus delay of the
obligation to disclose APIs) will be costly to Microsoft, the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides a strong incentive for
Microsoft expeditiously to complete the necessary engineering work
in order to comply with III.D by in effect holding up the release of
the Windows XP Service Pack until disclosure of the relevant APIs
and documentation under III.D is completed.
In the case of the ``Add/Remove'' utility and
``defaults'' that Microsoft must design and make available
to end-users and OEMs under section III.H, significant changes to
Windows XP and Windows 2000 must be engineered and made available in
subsequent versions of the operating systems. Providing the ship
date of the first service pack of Windows XP as the deadline for
that work similarly provides a strong incentive to Microsoft to
complete the necessary engineering work expeditiously.
In the case of both III.D and III.H, the expectation is that
they will become effective well before November 6 of this year
(i.e., twelve months after submission of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment to the court). At the time the decree was being negotiated,
the company was planning to try to release the first service pack
for Windows XP (a major engineering undertaking in itself) by the
middle of this year. While Microsoft hopes that timing will not slip
significantly, a very substantial engineering burden was imposed on
Microsoft by the decree and Microsoft advised the Department and the
Plaintiff states of that fact during the negotiations. As a result
the twelve months was put in as a ``back stop'' to provide
the Department and the settling states with an absolute drop dead
date for compliance with those two provisions. Everyone expects the
first service pack of Windows XP to be released well in advance of
November 2002.
Section III.E requires Microsoft to identify, document, and make
available for third-party licensing Communications Protocols that
allow a Windows server operating system to interoperate natively
with Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
As explained in my statement to the Committee, the so-called
``client-server interop'' issue is outside the scope of
the Court of Appeals decision, but based on Microsoft's expectation
that the Plaintiff states would settle if section III.E were
[[Page 30278]]
included in the proposed relief, Microsoft reluctantly agreed to it.
However, the provision requires Microsoft to license proprietary
information that as a general matter Microsoft previously did not
license to third parties. Again, it is a significant undertaking to
inventory all the protocols, to develop the documentation for third
parties, and otherwise to do the work necessary to license the
protocols to third parties. In recognition of the scope of that
work, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides Microsoft with
nine months to accomplish the work (which unlike sections III.D and
III.H, is not related to the work being done to develop the first
service pack of Windows XP). Thus, starling on August 6, 2002, the
relevant Communications Protocols will for the first time be
available for third-party licensing.
Q5. The proposed settlement agreement provides that Microsoft's
disclosure of APIs and documentation for an updated version of
Windows in a ``timely manner ``, and ``timely
manner'' seems to be defined as the time at which Microsoft
makes the new Windows version available to 150, 000 or more beta
testers. Does Microsoft routinely send beta test versions to so many
testers? When has it done so in the past? Can't Microsoft avoid the
disclose provision by simply limiting the number of beta testers?
A. In negotiating the decree, both sides understood the need for
setting the obligation to disclose APIs and documentation
sufficiently late in the development cycle of new products so that
Microsoft is able to develop, test, and modify the APIs as well as
the documentation of the APIs based on feedback the company gets
from third-party testers included in early beta releases. Once the
APIs and documentation are ``disclosed'' under section
III.D, they need to be ``hardened'' or fixed because at
that point third parties, particularly middleware vendors, will be
writing their own software that calls on those APIs and will be
frustrated and may be put to added expense if the APIs are modified
significantly before the wide commercial release of the Microsoft
platform product. On the other hand, the United States and the
settling states insisted that the disclosure occur before the
commercial release of the product so that third parties can begin
designing products that take advantage of the APIs at the time or
shortly after the time the Windows PC operating system containing
the APIs or the Microsoft Middleware is released commercially. In
the case of Windows PC operating systems, historically the last
major beta release before commercial release has involved
substantially in excess of 150,000 beta testers; for example, the
last major beta release of Windows XP was distributed to more than
500,000 beta testers.
It is inconceivable that Microsoft would forego beta testing or
would limit the number of beta testers of a Windows PC operating
system in order to avoid section III.D. Quite apart from the
seriousness with which Microsoft takes its responsibilities under
court orders, a failure by Microsoft to subject its products to
extensive beta testing would threaten to exact a heavy toll on
Microsoft's goodwill. Without extensive beta testing, Microsoft
would significantly increase the risk of shipping products with
major bugs that would engender consumer ill will. It is simply not
credible for Microsoft's competitors to assert that Microsoft would
subject its business to such a threat and raise questions about its
compliance with the decree in order to achieve a temporary
``head-start'' over competing middleware vendors. The
Committee should keep in mind that nowhere in its decision did the
Court of Appeals affirm a finding that Microsoft ever failed to
disclose APIs or otherwise manipulated disclosure of APIs to give
Microsoft middleware an illegal advantage over the competition.
Moreover, case law suggests that a monopolist is fully entitled to
gain the competitive advantage of its own research and development
work by not releasing information about it that might be needed by
developers of competing products until after the public release of
the company's new products.
Q6. If a PC manufacturer decides that it would like to remove
Windows Moviemaker, is that action protected from the ban on
retaliation in the proposed settlement? If a representative of a PC
manufacturer or a software developer testified before this Committee
or before the district court in the on-going states'' case,
would the settlement ban retaliation against them ?
A. Windows Moviemaker is not in the list of Microsoft Middleware
Products, nor should it be in light of the Court of Appeals
decision. While the United States and the settling states insisted
on a very broad (Microsoft believes, an overly broad) definition of
``middleware,'' only a definition that essentially
included all PC software would suffice to include features of
Windows PC operating systems such as Windows Moviemaker and third-
party software that performs similar functionality. The theory of
the government's case and the rationale of the Court of Appeals
decision is that Microsoft took certain actions (the twelve that the
Court of Appeals affirmed) which were designed to exclude Netscape
Navigator and Sun's Java technology from the market because
separately or together they represented threats to Microsoft's
position in the market for PC operating systems. That analysis had
plausibility because the Court of Appeals concluded that, by
exposing a broad range of general purpose APIs that developers could
use to create applications and by having the capability of running
on multiple PC operating systems, Navigator and Java had the
potential to serve as platforms that could compete with the Windows
platform. By contrast, software for displaying and editing movies
does not serve as a platform for applications development.
Moreover, the issue of Microsoft's unwillingness to allow OEMs
to remove access to the Internet Explorer functionality was only
anticompetitive because the Court of Appeals accepted the district
court's finding that it impaired Netscape's ability to persuade OEMs
to install and ship Navigator on their PCs. The government did not
challenge and the Court of Appeals did not conclude that, by itself,
Microsoft's practice of continually incorporating new features and
functionalities in successive versions of Windows PC operating
systems and insisting that OEMs install and ship Windows with its
features and functionalities intact violated the antitrust laws. To
the contrary, even under the previous Administration the Department
has recognized, as did the Court of Appeals'' opinion, that
such integration in general is potentially beneficial to software
developers who take advantage of the new APIs and consumers. (That
insight is what led the Court of Appeals to hold that allegations
that software integration amounts to an illegal tie-in must be
analyzed under the Rule of Reason and, on that basis, to reverse
Judge Jackson's conclusion that the integration of IE into Windows
98 was per se unlawful.)
Against this background, it should be no surprise that the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment is silent concerning Microsoft's
licensing policies with respect to the ability of OEMs to remove
non-middleware features of Windows such as Windows Moviemaker.
Indeed, any effort to include in this decree a provision that
precluded Microsoft from integrating new features and functionality
into Windows and ensuring that end users get all the features and
functionalities of Windows, at least other than Microsoft
middleware, would be directly contrary to the holding of the Court
of Appeals. Microsoft does in its licenses with OEMs require them to
ship Windows with all its non-middleware features intact. (OEMs,
however, are free to add third party software of any kind, including
digital media manipulation applications to computers before they
ship, and many do.) An OEM that removed Windows Moviemaker before
shipping Windows XP on its PCs would be in violation of its license
agreement. As explained in response to question 3 above,
legitimately seeking to enforce a valid license or contractual
provision that does not violate the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
would not be ``retaliation'' in any conventional sense of
that word.
As for the question concerning the possibility of Microsoft
retaliating against those who have testified against Microsoft,
there is absolutely no basis for suspecting that Microsoft would
even consider doing such a thing. Certainly the potential for such
retaliation was not part of the plaintiffs'' case and formed no
part of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment makes clear (sections III.A.3 and
III.F.1.b) that Microsoft cannot retaliate against any OEM, ISV or
IHV, including those who testified against Microsoft, because that
third party chooses to exercise any of the options provided by the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment.
Q7. Software developers that take advantage of the middleware
API disclosure are required by the proposed settlement to cross-
license their products back to Microsoft. Presumably this is of
great benefit to Microsoft, but how does it fit into remedying the
antitrust violations found in court?
A. Northing in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment requires
software developers to license their products to Microsoft, whether
or not the developers choose to use the new middleware APIs that
Microsoft is obligated
[[Page 30279]]
to disclose. Paragraph III.I. requires Microsoft to license to
certain third parties any Microsoft intellectual property that is
necessary for them to exercise the options and alternatives provided
under the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Subpart 5 states that
those parties ``may be required'' to license to Microsoft
any intellectual property they may have relating to the exercise of
such options or alternatives on ``reasonable and
nondiscriminatory terms'' so that Microsoft can comply with the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment by offering those options and
alternatives to those parties without running afoul of intellectual
property law. This provision simply facilitates implementation of
the decree provisions.
Q8. The provision of the proposed settlement addressing the
availability of server communications protocols refers to protocols
that are ``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.'' I am
confused about the meaning of ``natively, ``and the
Competitive Impact Statement does not clarify it. As the issue of
Microsoft ``s possible abuses in the server arena are even now
before the European Union's antitrust enforcement branch, ] am
interested to know precisely what your proposal accomplishes, and
whether it addresses the EU's concerns as well?
A. The ``client-server interoperability'' provision
(section III.E) is one example where the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment addresses an issue that has nothing to do with the Court of
Appeals'' decision. Microsoft agreed to that provision in order
to settle this case and move forward in a positive posture with the
federal and state governments. In particular, Microsoft agreed to
the provision based on its expectation that if it did the states
would agree to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Section III.E.
requires Microsoft to disclose Communications Protocols used by
Windows to interoperate with Microsoft server operating systems. The
term ``natively'' means that the interoperation is
directly between a Windows PC operating system such as Windows XP
and a Microsoft server operating system product as opposed to
communications between a Microsoft server and a program running on
top of such PC operating systems. As Microsoft understood the
concern that the provision was designed to address, the plaintiffs
wanted to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its position in PC
operating systems to harm competition in server operating systems. I
have not consulted with the EU on either the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment or its investigation, and so cannot represent whether or
not this provision addresses any concerns the EU may have.
Q9. The proposed settlement's prohibition on retaliation against
software developers creates an exception from that prohibition for
agreements that ``are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable
scope and duration'' in connection with obliging a developer to
use, distribute, promote, or develop software for Microsoft. What do
you envision that exception to cover, and more importantly, what
does it leave within the ban against retaliation?
A. This question seems to reflect a misreading of section III.F
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. The ``exception''
for reasonably ancillary contractual limitations applies to
subsection III.F.2 (which prohibits Microsoft from conditioning the
grant of consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, etc.,
any competing software) rather than to the ``anti-
retaliation'' prohibition of III.F. 1. In response to question
3, I have explained that the anti-retaliation provisions of the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment contain no ``carve-outs''
or ``exceptions.''
The exception language in section III.F.2 simply makes clear
that Microsoft may engage in the routine business practice of
collaborating with third parties that wish to use, distribute or
promote Microsoft software or to develop software together with
Microsoft. To the extent that Microsoft enters into such agreements,
it may place limitations on the third parties if the limitations are
carefully tailored and reasonably necessary in relation to the bona
fide contractual arrangement between Microsoft and the third party.
The law has long recognized that legitimate ancillary restraints are
often critical to procompetitive collaborations, and this exception
simply reflects that recognition. There is nothing in the Court of
Appeals decision or in public policy to suggest that such an
exception is inappropriate. Indeed, in the absence of this
provision, Microsoft would be reluctant or unable to enter into many
procompetitive collaborations--a result that would restrict
opportunities for third parties and potential benefits for
consumers.
Q10. The proposed settlement permits the removal of the Internet
Explorer icon, but as I understand it, even if a user chooses to
remove Internet Explorer, IE will continue to pop up in MyDocuments,
MyMusic, and MyPictures. Is this understanding correct, and if so,
how can a user ever be free of Internet Explorer?
A. The creation of default opportunities for third-party
middleware (section III.H.2) is another area where the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment actually goes beyond the decision of the
Court of Appeals. The whole concept of ``defaults'' is a
reflection of how Microsoft historically has chosen to design its
operating systems to provide extensive opportunities for non-
Microsoft software, even when that software duplicates functions
already provided by Windows. Generally, operating systems
(Microsoft's as well as those of its competitors) are a set of
integrated functionalities and are designed to rely on and invoke
those internal functionalities to perform various tasks. So for
example, when the end user asks Windows to perform a task that
requires displaying information in HTML (the format of the Web),
Windows invokes its internal HTML display software, which is
Internet Explorer. (And, of course, by utilizing the Windows API
set, ISVs can also invoke the Windows HTML display software). Over
time, the designers of Windows have chosen to give ISVs the
opportunity to take over certain functions--typically to open
and display certain file types (e.g., .him files)--in
circumstances in which the designer believes will enhance the end-
user experience. On the other hand, if allowing a third party to
take over a function would disrupt the integrated experience for an
end user, Windows generally does not provide a third-party default
opportunity.
In the case against Microsoft, the Department and the Plaintiff
states alleged that Microsoft's design of Windows to
``override'' the OEMs'' or end-users'' choice of
a default browser in certain circumstances (for example, in the case
of Windows Help and Windows Explorer) amounted to illegal monopoly
maintenance. (As explained above, it is more accurate to say that
Microsoft in designing Windows chose not to create a default
opportunity with respect to certain aspects of Windows where an
integrated experience seemed more appropriate.) While the plaintiffs
prevailed on this point in the district court, this was one of those
aspects of the district court's decision that the Court of Appeals
expressly reversed. United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 67
(DCCir. 2001). The Court of Appeals ruled that ``Microsoft may
not be held liable for this aspect of its product design.''
Notwithstanding this clear Microsoft victory, the United States
and the settling states insisted that Microsoft be required to
design future versions of its Windows PC operating systems in such a
way as to guarantee OEMs and third-party vendors of middleware
default opportunities in those circumstances described in section
III.H.2. Those opportunities apply not just to Internet browsing
software but to any third party software that meets the definition
of middleware. To some extent that may require Microsoft to design
the operating system in a way that allows third-party middleware to
interject itself in ways that disrupt the integrated end-user
experience; however, Microsoft agreed to III.H.2, despite the
absence of a basis for it in the Court of Appeals decision, in order
to settle the case.
Q11. In 1995, the Department and Microsoft entered into a
Consent Decree. Two years later, the Department sued Microsoft for
contempt of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed
over the meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of
the Decree, including the meaning of the word
``integrate'' as that term was used in the Decree. Given
the prior litigation between the Department and Microsoft over the
proper interpretation of the 1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that
Microsoft and the Department should have a common, explicit
understanding of the meaning and scope of this proposed Final
Judgment before it is entered?
A. The Department and Microsoft entered into their first consent
decree in 1994, and Microsoft began its compliance immediately. The
decree was not approved by the court until 1995. The Department and
Microsoft had a common understanding of that decree, but over time
the Department personnel involved in the negotiations left the
Department and new personnel instituted the litigation in 1997. In
1998, the Court of Appeals confirmed that Microsoft's interpretation
of the decree was likely
[[Page 30280]]
correct, and that Microsoft had not violated the decree.
It is important that Microsoft and the Department have a common
understanding of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment to avoid
unnecessary litigation in the future. Microsoft is confident that
the extensive negotiations in this case have resulted in a clear
agreement between the parties involved. Indeed, a great deal of the
mediation process was devoted to developing technical concepts and
clear language to ensure that there was a clear meeting of the minds
concerning Microsoft's obligations under the decree. While Judge
Jackson's now-vacated June 2000 judgment may seem clear to a non-
technical lawyer, it is largely technical ``gibberish,''
and the reasons for many of the changes in the language in analogous
provisions of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment were to make the
provisions meaningful and to avoid the sorts of disputes about which
you speak. Because the software design and disclosure issues
addressed by the Revised Proposed Final Judgment are inherently
complex and technical (far more so than any other antitrust decree
of which I am aware), it is no surprise that the language of the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment Would seem complex. However, the
language of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is infinitely
clearer and less ambiguous than that of Judge Jackson's order (or
the proposed remedies of the non-settling states), and thus
infinitely less likely to engender never-ending disputes between the
United States and Microsoft. Moreover, the Technical Committee is
designed to ensure prompt resolution of any issues that may arise
over the application of the technical language to specific factual
circumstances.
Q12. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed
Final Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should
be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the
Judgment?
A. Yes, that is an important goal; however, the ultimate test is
whether the language is understood and meaningful to the parties and
to the courts which must interpret it. Given the government's
objective of imposing prohibitions and obligations concerning
Microsoft's design of the Windows PC operating system and Microsoft
middleware, it was essential, as explained in response to question
11, that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment use technical terms
that may be foreign to the lexicon of most members of the public.
Any effort to make the language easily understood to those unskilled
or unfamiliar with software technology would be a prescription for
enforcement disaster. Given the inherently complex and technical
subject matter of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, I am
convinced that the language is as ``precise, unambiguous and
fully articulated'' as is possible.
A knowing comparison to the language in Judge Jackson's judgment
or the proposed remedies of the non-settling states makes clear how
vastly better a job the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does in
providing a precise, meaningful, and enforceable set of provisions
than either of those alternatives.
Q13. If Microsoft and the Department were to disagree about the
correct interpretation of one or more important provisions of the
proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially
serious problem?
A. There is no one who wants to avoid disputes over the correct
interpretation of the decree more than Microsoft. Even though
Microsoft was ultimately vindicated in its interpretation of the
1995 decree when a dispute arose between Microsoft and the
Department, the process of obtaining that vindication was very
painful and costly to the company. One of Microsoft's principal
goals in the negotiations that led to the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment was to develop concepts and language on which Microsoft and
the plaintiffs had a clear meeting of the minds and which could be
understood and fully complied with by the company and its thousands
of employees. As explained in response to earlier questions,
measured by that standard, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does
a vastly better job than any of the alternatives of which I am
aware.
Q14. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department
over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now,
before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather than through
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?
A. While it is certainly preferable to identify disagreements
before rather than after the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is
entered, we spent countless hours negotiating this agreement with
the Department and the states with the help of court-appointed
mediators, and are confident that we have a clear agreement. As I
explained in response to the previous questions, one of Microsoft's
principal objectives in the negotiation was to develop a decree that
would avoid the sort of litigation, which Microsoft ultimately won,
that arose out of the 1995 Consent Decree. (I should also note that
the 1997 litigation was resolved by the Court of Appeals, in
Microsoft's favor, within nine months of the Department's petition
for relief.) It was imperative that we have a decree with a clear
meaning to both the Department and Microsoft that would retain its
clarity even as the personnel in the Department changes. That said,
it is probably impossible to craft language that is so clear that
disputes over its meaning are inconceivable. However, while I would
not contend that the negotiations achieved perfection, the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment is significantly less prone to dispute than
the alternatives, such as Judge Jackson's now-vacated June 2000
judgment or the non-settling states'' proposed relief.
Moreover, to the extent legitimate disputes do arise in the future
that cannot be resolved by other means, the courts remain our
society's best vehicle for resolving such disputes.
Q15. Can the public at large rely upon the Department's
Competitive Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the
nature and scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final
Judgment? If not, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-
upon interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's
obligations under the Final Judgment?
A. The Competitive Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the
Department's obligations under the Tunney Act. It has the same legal
force that the Tunney Act gives any Competitive Impact Statement.
Q16. Does the Competitive Impact Statement accurately reflect
Microsoft's interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment?
A. Microsoft did not participate in the preparation of the
Competitive Impact Statement. The language of the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment was carefully negotiated and means what it says. The
Department's Competitive Impact Statement has the same legal force
and effect in this case as in any other. Beyond that I cannot go in
light of the facts that the Tunney Act proceeding is currently under
way before Judge Kollar-Kotelly and that the non-settling states are
attempting to raise various issues concerning the Competitive Impact
Statement as part of the ongoing ``remedies'' litigation
also before Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Once that litigation is completed,
I may be in a better position to discuss these issues with the
Committee.
Q17. Recognizing that the Department's Competitive Impact
Statement cannot address every conceivable issue that may arise in
the future concerning the proposed Final Judgment, is there anything
stated in the Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft
disagrees?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q18. Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q19. Does Microsoft disagree with anything stated in the
Department's Competitive Impact Statement concerning the meaning and
scope of the proposed Final Judgment?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q20. Will you commit on behalf of Microsoft to inform this
Committee in writing of each and every statement in the Department's
Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft disagrees? Will
you commit to do so within the next 15 days so that the public can
understand what disagreements Microsoft has with the Competitive
Impact Statement before the Tunney Act comment period expires ?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q21. Was there anything in Assistant Attorney General James'
testimony before this Committee concerning the meaning an d
interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment with which Microsoft
disagrees?
A. I thought the testimony of AAG James accurately described the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, and nothing I have seen or heard
since November 6th leads me to change my view that the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment reflects a clear meeting of the minds
between Microsoft on the one hand and the Department and the
settling states on the other.
Q22. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at
page 38 that.' ``if a
[[Page 30281]]
Windows Operating System Product is using all the Communications
Protocols that it contains to communicate with two servers, one of
which is a Microsoft server and one of which is a competing server
that has licensed and fully implemented all the Communications
Protocols, the Windows Operating System Product should behave
identically in its interaction with both the Microsoft and non-
Microsoft servers.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately
states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under section III(E)
of the proposed Final Judgment?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q23. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at
page 36 that: ``Section 1II.E. will prevent Microsoft from
incorporating into its Windows Operating System Products features or
functionality with which its own server software can interoperate,
and then refusing to make available information about those features
that non-Microsoft servers need in order to have the same
opportunities to interoperate with the Windows Operating System
Product.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately states one
objective of Microsoft's obligations under section Ill(E) of the
proposed Final Judgment?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Q24. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at
page 37-37 that.' ``Because the Communications Protocols
must be licensed for use' by third parties, the licensing
necessarily must be accompanied by sufficient disclosure to allow
licensees fully to utilize all the functionality of each
Communications Protocol.'' Does Microsoft agree that this
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under
section Ill(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?
A. See the answer to question 16.
Heatch Questions.
Q1. Concerns have been voiced about potential
``loopholes'' that might be created by ambiguities in
various definitions that are fundamental to determining Microsoft's
responsibilities under the settlement. Do you agree that the
``Competitive Impact Statement'' accurately memorializes
the spirit and underlying considerations of the Proposed Settlement
agreement; and do you further agree that it should be used as an
authoritative interpretive guide in settling disputes about the
practical application of the Proposed Settlement?
A. The Competitive Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the
Department's obligations under the Tunney Act. It has the same legal
force that the Tunney Act gives any Competitive Impact Statement.
Ultimately, the language of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
controls. Contrary to the assumption in the question that the
proposed judgment is full of loopholes, it is not. Both sides spent
five weeks full time working out technically complex concepts and
reducing them to language that both sides agreed to and understood.
Both sides worked long hours on crafting the precise wording of the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, and while the language is technical
and somewhat complex, reflecting the subject matter of the judgment,
it is vastly clearer, more precise, and understandable to those
bound by the decree and to those who must enforce it than any of the
alternatives ever suggested, including Judge Jackson's now-vacated
June 2000 order and the relief proposed by the non- settling states.
Q2. Could you please identify the specific aspects of the
Competitive Impact Statement that you believe do not accurately
represent Microsoft's understanding of the Proposed Settlement? And,
to the extent you believe that the Competitive Impact Statement is
inaccurate, would Microsoft be willing to provide a detailed
description of these perceived inaccuracies along with specific
language describing Microsoft's understanding of the issue,
language, or provision, the accuracy of which Microsoft disputes?
A. Microsoft did not participate in the preparation of the
Competitive Impact Statement. The language of the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment was carefully negotiated and means what it says. The
Department's Competitive Impact Statement has the same legal force
and effect in this case as in any other. Beyond that I cannot go in
light of the facts that the Tunney Act proceeding is currently under
way before Judge Kollar-Kotelly and that the non-settling states are
attempting to raise various issues concerning the Competitive Impact
Statement as part of the ongoing ``remedies'' litigation
also before Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Once that litigation is completed,
I may be in a better position to discuss these issues with the
Committee.
Q3. In your written testimony (p. 9) you briefly address the
Proposed Settlement's prohibition of retaliation by Microsoft
against computer makers. You summarize the provision in the
settlement stating that ``Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate
against computer makers who ship software that competes with
anything in [Microsoft's] Windows operating system.'' Id.
Concerns, however have been raised regarding perceived limitations
on this anti-retaliation provision. Could you explain either why the
perceived caveats were included in the anti-retaliation provision as
well as why you believe that these perceived caveats do not actually
allow Microsoft to engage in substantial retaliation against
computer makers?
A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment makes clear that
Microsoft may not retaliate against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs because
they develop, etc., software that competes with the Windows PC
operating systems or Microsoft Middleware. The provision prohibits
``retaliation'' as that word is commonly understood and
defined. The provisos in the relevant sections of the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment do not provide opportunities for Microsoft
to circumvent this prohibition; rather, those provisos simply
provide some certainty that in the future no one will try to extend
the prohibition to certain conduct that is legitimate and not
generally understood to be ``retaliation.'' So for
example, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is written to ensure
that it will not be possible to twist the common meaning of
``retaliation'' to cover situations in which Microsoft
seeks legitimately to protect its intellectual property against
infringement. The decree also makes clear that Microsoft may enforce
a contract, including through rights of termination against an OEM
that has breached the contract by, for example, refusing to pay
royalties due and owing to Microsoft. Microsoft's ability to enforce
valid OEM agreements that do not violate the decree is qualified,
however, because section III.A requires Microsoft to give an OEM the
opportunity to cure any breach at least two times during the term of
the contract (which currently is one year).
Q4. Is it your position that the anti-retaliation provision does
in fact prohibit Microsoft from all forms of retaliation against
computer software makers that choose to ship software that competes
with Microsoft products; and, if not, how do you answer the
criticisms that the provision is insufficient to effectively prevent
retaliation ?
A. See the answer to question 3.
Q5. Several media sources and commentators have reported that
major computer makers--or ``OEMs''--such as
Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway, are heavily dependent on
Microsoft, which--some have argued--may explain the lack
of vocal opposition by these companies to the Proposed Settlement.
With this in mind, how can the Proposed Settlement's substantial
reliance on these companies to incorporate software that competes
with Microsoft products on the computers the), distribute be trusted
to result in actual competition in the middleware market?
A. The Department and the plaintiff states are probably in the
best position to explain the theory of their case and their request
for relief. Nevertheless, both the premise of much of the case and
of much of the relief proposed by anyone in this case has been that
competition will be enhanced if Microsoft is prevented from
retaliating against or favoring OEMs on the basis of their decisions
whether or not to distribute, support, etc., software that competes
with Microsoft's PC operating systems or middleware. The United
States and settling states insisted on sections III.A and III.B to
eliminate Microsoft's ability to harm or favor OEMs based on their
decisions to support, vel non, software that competes with Microsoft
platform software. In addition, section III.C ensures OEMs that they
will have freedom to install and feature non-Microsoft middleware,
and section III.H even obligates Microsoft to design its future
operating systems in ways that make it easier for OEMs (and end
users) to display non-Microsoft middleware.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgment thus eliminates what the
United States and Plaintiff states perceived as disincentives for
OEMs to install and feature non-Microsoft PC operating systems and
middleware, and the proposed judgment creates a number of new
incentives and opportunities for OEMs to install and feature such
software. It is noteworthy that even before these new protections
for OEMs were put in place, OEMs were shipping non-Microsoft
software, like the AOL client or RealNetworks media software, that
fits within the Revised Proposed Final Judgment's broad definition
[[Page 30282]]
of middleware. Indeed, AOL currently has a major advertising
campaign with broadcast commercials advising PC owners that
``AOL is already installed on most computers, probably even
yours.'' It is also worth noting that the Court of Appeals did
not conclude that Microsoft ``retaliated'' against any OEM
for shipping any competing software.
Q6. Could you please explain, in detail, what incentives you
believe will actually lead OEMs to install software that competes
against Microsoft software? Are you aware of particular competing
software that OEMs might currently wish to install in favor of
similar Microsoft products?
A. As explained in response to question 5, OEMs are already
shipping a lot of non-Microsoft middleware. If there is any doubt, I
invite anyone to visit their local PC retailer and discover all the
preloaded non-Microsoft software that OEMs are already offering on
the PCs they ship. The AOL and RealNetworks examples in the response
to question 5 are not alone. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment
provides OEMs with flexibility to hide access to certain features in
Windows if those OEMs wish to promote non-Microsoft software in lieu
of the Windows features. As explained in my answer to other
questions from the Committee, the Court of Appeals upheld the
district court's finding that OEMs were less likely to install non-
Microsoft Web browsing software if they were not allowed to hide the
icons for Internet Explorer. OEMs will now be free to do so for Web
browsing and other categories of software. Whether OEMs really wish
to hide access to features of Windows, of course, remains to be
seen. Nevertheless, the important point is that the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment removes any obstacle posited by the plaintiffs in the
case and provides significant new opportunities for installing non-
Microsoft middleware products on PCs running Windows.
Q7. With respect to concerns raised regarding the lack of a
strong enforcement mechanism in the Proposed Settlement, could you
please expand upon the reason that you believe the Proposed
Settlement ensures effective enforcement? Could you also explain
your view of how enforcement will occur? Finally, could you explain
why--assuming that this is your position--the proposed
alternative enforcement mechanisms are either unnecessary,
undesirable, or both ?
A. As stated in my testimony, the enforcement provisions in the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment are unprecedented in a cM1 antitrust
decree. While enforcement authority resides with the Department and
the settling states (as parties to the settlement), the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment puts an independent Technical Committee on
the Microsoft campus with broad authority and unlimited access to
company facilities, personnel and intellectual
property--including the most sensitive of Microsoft's
proprietary software code. The Technical Committee is intended to
help monitor and resolve any technical issues that arise in an
expeditious and expert manner without putting Microsoft's legitimate
intellectual property rights at risk of confiscation. As for
interpreting the legal meaning of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment and expertly and effectively utilizing enforcement
mechanisms to ensure that the judgment is complied with, the
Department of Justice and the states quite understandably felt that
there is no one in the world with their experience in interpreting
and enforcing antitrust decrees. As a consequence they negotiated
for and obtained, a complete set of the enforcement powers that the
Department historically has obtained in antitrust judgments.
Moreover, they demanded and obtained judgment provisions that ensure
that the Technical Committee will not in any way undermine or
abrogate those powers.
All of the alternative enforcement mechanisms that have been
proposed by third parties would really add nothing to the power of
the Department and the states to enforce a judgment. If anything
they would add layers of bureaucracy and potentially undermine the
Department's control over enforcement of the decree. For example,
some have suggested the need for a special master. No one argues
that a master is a substitute for the Technical Committee; rather,
the master would be a complement to deal with legal issues. The
Department, however, does not need help dealing with legal issues
surrounding consent decrees; it is the nation's leading expert on
such issues. Moreover, because the master could not assume Article
III powers, Microsoft would be able to appeal any decision to the
district court and beyond, thereby delaying final resolution of
disputes. On the other hand, a master could interfere with the
legitimate and routine exercise of the Department's constitutionally
based prosecutorial discretion.
DeWine Questions
Q1. Mr. Rule, in your testimony you have gone to great length to
explain how certain portions of the government's case were dropped
or thrown out during the course of litigation. Does Microsoft
acknowledge that it violated the antitrust laws?
A. Microsoft certainly acknowledges that the Court of Appeals
held that certain of Microsoft's conduct amounted to monopoly
maintenance in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. The reason
that Microsoft went so far in the negotiations with the Department
of Justice and the states--as my testimony explained, the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment covers conduct and products that
were never part of the case--was to close this contentious
chapter in the company's history and move forward in a new, more
constructive manner with the Department and the states.
Unfortunately, several of the states that had less involvement in
the litigation and negotiations than the states that settled decided
to hold out for relief that not only has nothing to do with the
Court of Appeals decision but is also confiscatory, anticompetitive,
and in many cases unintelligible. As a result, Microsoft has had no
choice but to continue litigation and must preserve its full ability
to defend itself, including its right if necessary to seek review of
the Court of Appeals' decision.
Q2. Mr. Rule, many within the high tech industry have argued
that the antitrust laws are overly cumbersome when it comes to
promoting competition within the fast- changing industry. Is this
Microsoft's position?
A. No, Microsoft recognizes that the antitrust laws have an
important role in protecting the benefits of competition in all
industries, including high technology.
Q3. Mr. Rule, What do you believe are the appropriate objectives
of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you believe the
case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition cases should
be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? Finally, do
you believe this settlement fully achieves the appropriate remedy
objectives? If not, in what ways is it deficient? And in what ways,
if any, do you believe it reaches beyond the case?
A. At pages 4 and 5 of my testimony to the Committee, I quoted
the language of the Court of Appeals'' decision and the
comments of Judge Kollar-Kotelly concerning the scope of remedy.
Moreover, in a recent article in the ABA's Antitrust magazine,
Assistant Attorney General Charles James provides an analysis of the
legal basis for relief in a case such as this. Also, it is worth
recalling that the Court of Appeals quoted the antitrust treatise of
Professors Areeda and Hovenkamp, to the effect that ``''
[re]ere existence of an exclusionary act does not itself justify
full feasible relief against the monopolist to create maximum
competition.... Absent such causation [i.e., between the conduct and
creation or maintenance of monopoly power], the antitrust
defendant's unlawful behavior should be remedied by ``an
injunction against continuation of that conduct.'' United
States v. Microsoft Co/p., 253 F.3d 34, 106 (DC Cir. 2001), quoting
3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 650a, at 67. Moreover,
the court noted that ``the District Court expressly did not
adopt the position that Microsoft would have lost its position in
the OS market but for its anticompetitive behavior.'' 253 F.3d
at 107. The court concluded its review by stating that any remedy
``should be tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for
the remedy.'' Id. As this analysis suggests the case law does
support the proposition that the remedial objectives are different
in cases of monopoly acquisition as opposed to monopoly maintenance,
particularly where, as here, the causal connection between the
defendant's position in the market and the illegal conduct is
tenuous at best.
Evaluated against the backdrop of the relevant caselaw, the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes substantially beyond what the
law required for a remedy in this case. To cite just a few examples,
the definition of middleware is much broader and more inclusive than
the conception of middleware at issue in the Court of Appeals
decision. Several of the central, most onerous provisions of the
Revised Proposed Final Judgment involve conduct that was not even
addressed by the Court of Appeals. For example, nothing in the Court
of Appeals decision suggests that the way in which Microsoft has
made APIs and related documentation available to third parties
violated the Sherman Act; yet, Microsoft has agreed to a whole
regime of compulsory API
[[Page 30283]]
disclosures for middleware. Similarly, nothing in the decision even
calls into question charging different OEMs different royalties for
Windows licenses, but the Revised Proposed Final Judgment requires
Microsoft to charge the top 20 OEMs uniform royalties. Nothing in
the decision suggests that Microsoft ever has retaliated against any
OEM, ISV or other company because it supported or shipped competing
software; yet, Microsoft agreed to several provisions prohibiting
such retaliation. And Microsoft is obligated to license its client-
server communications protocols despite the fact that the so-called
client-server interop issue was not raised in the District Court
much less before the Court of Appeals. In contrast, I have yet to
hear a credible argument as to how, in light of the Court of Appeals
opinion, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is deficient.
Q4. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed
even if consumers don't want them. It seems to me that this deters
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing
rival software. And second, it seems that software developers are
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will arrays be
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't we be
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what
concerns are raised by removing the code?
A. First, it is important to emphasize that the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment does address the issue of commingling of code as that
issue was relevant in the Department's case and the Court of Appeals
opinion. The only objection to commingling advanced in the case was
that it made it impossible for OEMs to remove end user access to
Internet Explorer. Section III.H of the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment obviates any such concern by requiring Microsoft to design
its Windows PC operating systems in such a way as to enable OEMs and
end users to remove end user access to Microsoft middleware and
replace it with access to non-Microsoft middleware. Given the theory
of the case, the record developed in the lower court, and the
decision of the Court of Appeals, this provision of the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment provides a complete remedy.
Second, as Assistant Attorney General James indicated in
response to one of the questions of the Committee during the
hearing, the plaintiffs never sought to prevent Microsoft from
integrating functionality into its operating systems or from
exposing that functionality through APIs to ISVs. Indeed, as I
understand, even the Department's proposed divestiture remedy which
was adopted by Judge Jackson, kept a single, intact operating system
company so as to prevent ``balkanization'' of the Windows
platform. Moreover, the Court of Appeals decision clearly recognized
the benefits of integration in the area of platform software and the
benefits of the ubiquity of the API set of Windows. The Court's
discussion of ``commingling'' did not reflect hostility to
ubiquitous dissemination of APIs. Any remedy that allowed OEMs to
remove code and APIs from Windows would be unworkable: third party
developers and their customers would suffer because their
applications would not run properly, assuming they would run at all,
if OEMs removed code exposing APIs. Indeed, it would make no sense
to obligate Microsoft to disclose new APIs (as the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment does) while at the same time allowing OEMs to create
versions of Windows from which APIs are removed, rendering the
disclosed APIs useless to developers.
Q5. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First,
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality
of civil antitrust remedies, that they don't really aim to punish?
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?
A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes well beyond halting
the specific acts found to violate the antitrust laws. It is true
that the purpose of a civil antitrust decree is to remedy the
violation rather than punish the offender, but the decree in this
case provides very strong relief beyond the markets and practices at
issue in the underlying case. This remedy will change the way
Microsoft does business and is more than what the law requires. As
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals recognized, the
plaintiffs failed to prove that Microsoft benefited from any of its
acts that were held to violate the Sherman Act, so no basis exists
for requiring that Microsoft be denied any such benefits. Moreover,
while it is well- established in the law that punishment and
deterrence are not a proper objective of a consent decree in a civil
antitrust case, there is no question that the cost to Microsoft of
this litigation, the follow-on private, treble damage actions, and
the far-ranging nature of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment send a
powerful signal to Microsoft and other firms all across the economy.
Kohl Questions
Q1. Mr. Rule, in the past your client Microsoft has been adamant
in denying it was a monopolist--despite its 95% share of
computer operating systems--and that it in any way violated the
antitrust laws. Now, the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals has
ruled that Microsoft indeed is a monopolist and indeed acted
illegally to maintain its monopoly. Will this ruling--and
Microsoft's experience in this litigation--in any way chasten
Microsoft into behaving more responsibly? Is Microsoft now willing
to recognize that it is a monopolist and, as a result, has
obligations to deal with competing businesses in a way that would
not exist if did not have monopoly power in its business?
A. Microsoft certainly acknowledges that the Court of Appeals
held that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and that certain of
Microsoft's conduct amounted to monopoly maintenance in violation of
section 2 of the Sherman Act. Moreover, the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment represents Microsoft's extensive concessions to relief that
go far beyond what the company believes the Department and states
had a right to obtain under the applicable precedents--as my
testimony explained, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment covers
conduct and products that were never part of the case. The reason
that Microsoft went so far in the negotiations with the Department
of Justice and the states was to close this contentious chapter in
the company's history and move forward in a new, more constructive
manner with the Department and the states. Unfortunately, several of
the states that had less involvement in the litigation and
negotiations than the states that settled decided to hold out for
relief that not only has nothing to do with the Court of Appeals
decision but is also confiscatory, anticompetitive, and in many
cases unintelligible. As a result, Microsoft has had no choice but
to continue litigation and must preserve its full ability to defend
itself, including its fight if necessary to seek review of the Court
of Appeals'' decision.
Q2. Please identify for us five specific ways in which the
proposed settlement, once it is in force, will compel Microsoft to
change its business practices in a manner which will benefit
consumers.
A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment imposes a number of new
obligations on Microsoft. As you have requested, the following is a
list of five such changes chosen at random. First, section III.B
requires Microsoft to provide the top 20 OEMs with uniform license
agreements pursuant to terms and conditions. Pursuant to the
stipulation Microsoft signed when the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment was filed on November 6th, the new terms became effective
on December 16th. Second, III.C requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to
remove end user access to functionality in Windows XP such as
Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger and to replace it with
access to third-party software or services such as RealNetworks
media player and to AOL's Instant Messenger. Third, section III.E
requires Microsoft to license all of the communications protocols
that Windows PC operating systems use to interoperate natively with
Windows server operating systems. While Microsoft has licensed some
of those protocols to third parties on an ad hoc basis, the company
has never made them available systematically to third parties.
Fourth, section III.G prohibits Microsoft from agreeing with a
variety of third parties to contracts that require the third parties
to distribute, promote, use, or support Microsoft platform software
``in a fixed percentage'' except in narrow circumstances.
Prior to agreeing to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft
sometimes used fixed percentage requirements to ensure that it
received the effort from third-parties for
[[Page 30284]]
which Microsoft bargained; Microsoft can no longer freely use this
normal business mechanism. Fifth, section IV.B requires Microsoft to
accept three neutral technical experts (the ``Technical
Committee') onto its campus and provide them with full access to its
employees and its most confidential information. This is
unprecedented not just for Microsoft but for any other U.S. firm of
which I am aware. Presumably, the Department of Justice and settling
states believed these changes (as well as the others in the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment) would benefit consumers or they would not
have demanded the inclusion of these provisions in the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment.
Q3. The proposed consent decree contains prohibitions on
Microsoft retaliating against computer makers who choose to install
in their machine software products that compete with software made
by Microsoft. But many wonder if Microsoft will be able to offer
financial incentives to accomplish essentially the same thing. For
example, could Microsoft offer to pay incentive amounts to computer
makers who feature or promote Microsoft software on their machines ?
A. Section III.C of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment
prohibits Microsoft from restricting OEMs by agreement from, among
other things, installing any non- Microsoft middleware on the PCs
that the OEM ships. That section also prohibits Microsoft from
``restrict[in] by agreement'' any OEM from
``[e]exercising any of the options provided in III.H of the
Final Judgment.'' Thus, the judgment does in fact prevent
Microsoft from offering financial incentives to OEMs not to install
and ship competing non-Microsoft middleware.
Q4. One important issue the settlement was intended to address
was Microsoft's ability to penalize computer makers that load non-
Microsoft software onto their machines. Under the settlement, can
Microsoft still bar a computer maker from putting WordPerfect word
processing software or Quicken financial software pre- installed on
their machine? If so, why isn't Microsoft's ability to place such
restrictions on computer makers a problem for competition?
A. Microsoft has never kept a computer maker from loading either
WordPerfect or Quicken (or any other application) on machines it
sells. Indeed, a quick review of any computer retailer indicates the
variety of applications installed by OEMs on the PCs they sell. The
reason that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does not place such
restrictions as you mention on Microsoft is that no part of the case
against Microsoft had anything to do with conduct by Microsoft that
was intended to, or did, have any exclusionary impact on non-
middleware applications such as word-processing and personal-finance
software. And there is no plausible argument that extending relief
to such non-middleware applications has a connection to the theory
of the Department's case against Microsoft.
Durbin Questions
Q1. This is an unprecedented settlement for an unprecedented
case. The entire world has been, and will continue to, watch every
aspect of this case. They will also be watching to see if Microsoft
complies with every word of this decree. Assuming this settlement is
approved, can you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure
compliance with the settlement? Are these steps unique in any way?
A. Microsoft has made a company-wide commitment to comply with
the settlement entered in this case. The Revised Proposed Final
Judgment contains strong enforcement provisions that include
internal compliance efforts within the company. As stated in my
testimony, Microsoft already had one of the largest and most
talented in-house legal teams in the country, and the recent hiring
of new compliance specialists will further enhance that team. From
the very highest levels of the company, Microsoft is eager to settle
this matter and move forward, and has every intention of meeting its
settlement obligations to avoid any further disruption of its
business. Business executives, developers and lawyers are hard at
work at Microsoft implementing every aspect of the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment. Microsoft has provided extensive training on the
settlement to its lawyers and key business and development employees
throughout the world. Senior personnel are meeting on a weekly basis
to manage everything Microsoft must do to comply with the
settlement, including identifying and documenting new APIs and new
Communications Protocols and designing and developing new software
for the upcoming Service Pack release of Windows XP to facilitate
removing access to key Windows features. Microsoft has already
implemented the OEM provisions of the settlement, establishing new
uniform Windows license terms for its OEM customers, making those
terms available to the Department and the states for their review,
and so forth.
Q2. What assurances can the American people have that Microsoft
will really be constrained from future anti-competitive practices ?
A. As stated in my testimony, the Revised Proposed Final
Judgment as agreed between Microsoft, the Department and the
settling states provides very strong relief and unprecedented
enforcement mechanisms. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes
well beyond the practices at issue in the underlying case and will
change in significant ways the manner in which Microsoft does
business.
Microsoft has made full compliance with the Revised Proposed
Final Judgment a top priority. As mentioned in response to an
earlier question, Microsoft has never been found to have violated
its previous antitrust decree.
Responses to Questions from Senator Hatch:
Question #1: Both commentators and several witnesses (in
their written testimony) defend the Proposed Settlement by arguing
that its terms are as good as--or even better than-- what
would have been obtained through further litigation. Several have
also pointed out that it would take at least two more years to get a
remedy in place by means of litigation. Could you please explain
whether and why you believe that further settlement negotiations or
litigation would be in the public interest?
Answer: A settlement of established antitrust violations is
desirable only insofar as it remedies past misconduct or promotes
future competition. The Proposed Settlement unfortunately does
neither. Even as to the desktop PC market it contains numerous
loopholes, and critically omits any objective enforcement mechanism
to incent compliance. Given Microsoft's proven track record of
circumventing the 1995 consent decree, riffs risks gutting even the
limited remedies set forth in the Proposed Settlement. The Proposed
Settlement also flatly fails to deal with the increasing important
arena of new devices (cell phones, PDAs, set-top boxes, and home
entertainment centers) into which Microsoft is extending its desktop
operating system and applications monopolies through many of the
same improper technical and contractual means it used to obtain
dominance in the desktop PC arena. Absent stronger and wider
protections for consumers, litigation would be the only viable
alternative to protect consumer interests.
Question #2: In light of the number of claims from the
original complaint that the DC Circuit found to lack merit, is it
reasonable to believe that any judgment resulting from further
litigation would be significantly better than the Proposed
Settlement?
Answer: While the DC Circuit did not affirm every finding of
liabilit7 against Microsoft, and the Department of Justice has
elected not to pursue certain causes of action that were remanded,
the case against Microsoft is still compelling. The DC Circuit
affirmed the district court's central finding that Microsoft has a
monopoly and has acted improperly to protect that monopoly by
undermining competitive threats like Netscape's Navigator web
browser and Sun's Java programming language. As I understand it, the
Supreme Court and the DC Court of Appeals have both held that a
reviewing court has the obligation to ensure a remedy for proven
antitrust abuses should end the illegal monopoly, undo the
anticompetitive effects, and prevent future practices likely to lead
to future monopolization. For the reasons noted, the Proposed
Settlement fails well short of these objectives.
Question #3: At the hearing, I emphasized the need for
prompt antitrust enforcement in quickly evolving markets. Could you
please explain whether and why you believe that the benefits of
having an imperfect settlement now are outweighed by those of having
a possibly better settlement at some point in the future?
Answer: It is precisely because the Proposed Settlement is a
backwards-looking document that fails to deal with current and
emerging competitive abuses that we need a more efficient and
forward-looking remedy. Failing to address new markets at tiffs
point would permit Microsoft to re-enact its repeated monopolistic
conduct, extending its improper monopoly
Responses to Questions from Senator DeWine
Question #1: The Proposed Final Judgment aims to make the
middleware market more
[[Page 30285]]
competitive. Do you believe it is effective in doing so?
Answer: For the reasons noted in my written testimony, I am
confident that the Proposed Final Judgment will not encourage
competition in the market for middleware. The Proposed Final
Judgment fails to meaningfully limit Microsoft's ability to use its
tremendous market power to retaliate against companies whose conduct
threatens that market power. As a result, original equipment
manufacturers are highly unlikely to adopt middleware products that
compete with Microsoft's products or anticipated product extensions.
Moreover, much of the Proposed Final Judgment focuses on
original equipment manufacturers, while the locus of control has
largely moved to the operating system and to the networks to which
it links (such as MSN). Controlling the operating system and the
linked networks gives a company the ability to prompt users to make
upgrades and accept default programs and features. The Proposed
Final Judgment gives Microsoft all the latitude it needs to prompt
consumers at eve:! turn in order to ensure that the easiest path to
middleware software is always the Microsoft path.
Similarly, Microsoft is building on its operating system
monopoly through initiatives such as Passport and Hailstorm,
establishing a dominant share of consumer identity information,
which acts to further lock-in consumers to the use of Microsoft
middleware across a variety of devices and networks.
Question #2: Do you believe Microsoft will be able to
leverage its monopoly in the PC operating system market to capture
market share in other operating systems markets such as hand-held
devices, navigation devices, and servers? Does the proposed
settlement address this issue at all, and do you believe that
Appellate Court's ruling would permit a settlement that address
these types of concerns?
Answer: Microsoft's ability to improperly extend its monopoly to
new areas is a significant cause for concern. Microsoft was
convicted of illegally protecting its desktop PC monopoly against
threats from Netscape's Navigator browser and Sun's Java programming
language, innovative new products that each had the potential to
reduce Microsoft's monopoly dominance of the computing environment.
Given the increasing importance of the interoperability of different
consumer-oriented computing environments (desktop PCs, client-server
network operating systems, small devices, and home entertainment
systems), control over the broader computing environment is critical
to preserve Microsoft's dominance into the future. Many of these
devices operate in client-server configurations, in which
Microsoft's PC desktop operating system dominance gives it an
advantage in the server market, and thus an advantage in writing
software for any other devices that need to access those servers.
On the other hand the emergence of non-Microsoft-dominated soft,
rare could pose a serious potential threat to Microsoft's ability to
dominate this wider computing environment--just as Navigator
and Java did a few rears ago. The combination of network
externalities resulting from the creation and protection of
Micr0soft's existing operating system and application
monopolies--together with the likely repetition of Microsoft's
improper technical and contractual misconduct in these new
markets--poses a critical problem for competitors and
consumers. The Court of Appeals ruling expressly authorizes, and in
fact calls for, a remedy that not only redresses past misconduct but
also deters practices likely to extend the anticompetitive effects
of the improper monopoly into the future. The Proposed Final
Judgment fails to do so and sets the stage for a continued stifling
of innovation.
Responses to Questions from Senator Kohl
Question #1: Do you believe that this settlement is adequate
to restore competition in the computer software industry? Why or why
not?
Answer: No. The Proposed Settlement fails to include remedies
that will restore any meaningful competition to file markets in
which Microsoft improperly established its monopolies, fails to
include any objective or efficient sanctions for non-compliance with
its terms, and fails to address the emerging consumer markets (such
as those for small devices such as PDAs, cell phones, television
set-top boxes, and home entertainment centers) in which Microsoft is
improperly expanding its monopolies.
Question #2 (a): Are there any restraints on Microsoft's
conduct which you think should be in the settlement but are not? Is
so, what are they?
Answer: Yes. The remedies proposed by file non-setting states
would be far more effective than the Proposed Settlement in
redressing prior abuses and restoring competition to the market. As
set forth in my original written testimony, my perspective at
Liberate gives me special insights into the need for several of
these remedies:
Review of Microsoft Investments. Investing the considerable
proceeds of its desktop monopoly in new markets, Microsoft has
extracted, or attempted to extract, exclusive or near-exclusive
commercial distribution arrangements to block out competitors. In
the interactive television industry alone, Microsoft has invested
billions of dollars with leading cable and satellite networks. The
strings attached to these investments often require net-works to buy
Microsoft's middleware, making it difficult or impossible for them
to buy competitive products.
Prevention of Anticompetitive Conduct in Non-Desktop PC Markets.
The Proposed Final Judgment focuses only on Windows products for
desktop PCs and includes broad and ambiguous exceptions to its
limits on retaliation. These loopholes would apparently let
Microsoft get away with the -kind of misconduct it perpetrated
against Liberate Technologies when it was known as Network Computer.
The result would be to block or delay the development of new
competitive devices and technologies. The remedy proposed by the
non-settling states would, on the other hand, prevent Microsoft from
using this type of retaliation to unfairly extend its desktop
monopoly to a wider array of software and devices, while more
adequately opening Microsoft's technical standards to prevent it
from excluding rival software companies from meaningful competition.
Prevention of Efforts to Block Non-Proprietary Standards.
Microsoft has also abused its monopoly position by blocking
industry-wide standards essential to the evolution of a new
generation of network-based devices. In our industry, Microsoft has
undermined the Java programming language as a standard for digital
television, lobbying heavily to prevent U.S. and European standards
bodies from standardizing on Java. As you know, Java lets developers
``write once, run anywhere'', permitting content to run
across a wide variety of platforms rather than just on Microsoft's
proprietary code.
Moreover, by removing the Java Virtual Machine from its PC
operating systems while the JI is common elsewhere, Microsoft
discourages developers from creating new ``write-once, run-
anywhere'' content, undermines support for uniform standards,
and drives developers to write to proprietary Microsoft platforms.
Microsoft's foot-dragging and affirmative interference has slowed
the deployment of digital television in the United States. Cable
companies and television manufacturers both say that such deployment
has been slowed by lack of a definitive standard, a standard that
Microsoft's tactics have delayed and undermined. Microsoft's
approach stands in direct opposition to the clearly expressed will
of Congress and the interests of all Americans interested in richer
and more varied television programming.
Question #2(b): Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct,
are there other deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which
you believe should be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are
they?
Answer: The critical gap in the Proposed Settlement in this
regard is the lack of an objective or effective enforcement
mechanism. Per the recommendation of the non-settling states, I
would recommend that the district court consider using a technically
knowledgeable outside advisor to review claims of Microsoft non-
compliance with the terms of any consent decree. Moreover, and
critically, the sanctions for violation of the terms of the decree
must go beyond the mere extension of those terms for a relatively
brief additional period.
Question #3: Critics of riffs proposed settlement argue that
one significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install
competing software and remove Microsoft soft-,rare do not apply with
respect to software that has distributed less than one million
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation? Won't this
provision make it difficult for small or start-up software
manufacturers that make software that competes with Microsoft's
products to gain access to the computer desktop?
Answer: As Bill Gates himself has said, the greatest competitive
threat to Microsoft's dominant position comes not from existing
competition, but from the kid tinkering in his garage, designing
seminal new software that might revolutionize the industry.
[[Page 30286]]
Unfortunately, the one-mill/on-copy threshold makes it a
terrifically uphill battle for those ``kinds of revolutionary
ideas to get traction and take hold. Without access to critical
information about Microsoft's products, it will be extremely
difficult for any'' new competitor to make its product operate
successfully in a Microsoft-dominated computing environment. As a
result, venture capitalists will be loath to support any small
company that seeks to compete with Microsoft--no matter how
attractive its innovation.
By way of example, Liberate Technologies was itself until
recently a fledgling start-up. It took us five years and a difficult
decision to exit a ]me of business (network computing) dominated by
Microsoft before we were able to reach the benchmark of distributing
one million copies of our software. In today's environment, with
Microsoft's additional market power, we simply would not have been
able to reach that point.
In sum, the million-copy threshold, coupled with the failure to
effectively redress Microsoft's existing market dominance, will
certainly stifle promising next-generation innovations.
Competitive Technology
January 14, 2002
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 224
Washington, DC 20510
VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Dear Chairman Leahy:
I want to thank you again for the'' opportunity to appear
at last month'' s hearing to testify on how the Revised
Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) in United States v Microsoft, will
affect consumers and the information technology (IT) industry. I
]lave received the written questions from members of the Committee
and I'm pleased to provide responses that will not only complete the
record but also provide the perspective of the small high technology
companies that represent the majority of the industry.
Responses to Questions from Senator Hatch
1. There is no doubt that bringing this protracted litigation to
a close is in the best interests of the IT industry and consumers.
Settling the case removes a cloud of uncertainty and allows
companies large and small to focus on innovating to meet consumer
demand. Further litigation is not likely to produce any remedial
actions that-- a) are not already covered by the RPFJ and
responsive to the Court of Appeal's ruling, or b) would be in the
interests of the industry, save a few Microsoft rivals. As
demonstrated by the very nature of the proposed
``remedies'' that will be part of ongoing litigation, it
is clear that the RPFJ presents an appropriate and balanced
resolution of this case. I agree with Assistant Attorney General
Charles James when he noted at a November 2, 2001 press conference,
``It]he settlement is consistent with the relief we believe we
might have obtained in litigation. This settlement, however, has the
advantages of immediacy and certainty.'' I
2. It is very unlikely that a judgment borne of continued
litigation will be marginally, let alone !'significantly''
better than the RPFJ''. As you point out in your question, the
Court of Appeals has dramatically reduced the finding of liability
against Microsoft. The conduct restrictions, coupled with the
additional enforcement measures such as the creation of a Technical
Committee, more than adequately address the anticompetitive behavior
identified by the Court of Helping Washington Get IT. 1413 K Street.
N W ``12th Floor Washington. DC Tel: 202-33 ]-2130 Fax:
202-331-2 ) 39 (r) email: [email protected]
www. ACTonline.org
Appeals. I include the following table to show precisely where
the RPFJ addresses each finding:
Findings of Antlcompctitivc Conduct by the Court of Appeals
Settlement Section
Limiting promotion of browsers or restricting OEMs from modifying
the initial III.C, boot sequence III.G. 1, III. H
Prohibiting deletion of the Internet Explorer icon 11II-t.1-3
Commingling Internet Explorer & Windows code without providing a
simple III. H. 1-3 mechanism for OEMs and users to remove
access to Internet Explorer
Restrictions on the promotion and distribution of competing web
browsers by III.A.1, Internet Access Providers III.C.l-2
First-wave requirements for software vendors to use Microsoft's Java
Virtual III.F.2
Machine First-wave requirements for software vendors to use Internet
Explorer III.G.1
Leveraging MS Office to induce Apple to feature Internet Explorer
III.G.2
Misleading Java Developers III.D
Pressuring Intel to end their Java Virtual Machine development
III.F. 1
3. On balance, this settlement is good for our industry. We
agree with the Senator that the RPFJ is not perfect. In fact, as
pointed out in my written testimony, ACT believes that the
provisions mandating disclosure of server protocols and the creation
of the Technical Committee are beyond the finding of liability and
may set an inappropriate precedent for future antirust cases in the
information technology industry. That said, it is important to point
out that this case is nearly four years old and has shrouded the
entire IT industry in a haze of uncertainty. At present, the
technology industry--which has been the engine for much of the
recent economic growth--cannot realize its full potential in
the uncertain environment this case engenders. Those who seek to
prolong this case for their own benefit are, at a minimum, guilty of
making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Responses to Questions from Senator DeWine
1. One important lesson to be learned from this case is that
antitrust principles apply to the IT industry. The RPFJ is proof
that antirust principles, when applied properly, can work to restore
competition within the IT industry. For example, the settlement will
stimulate competition by giving greater flexibility to computer
manufacturers and users to choose among different middleware and
operating systems.
With respect to what to say to Netscape, I would hardly consider
them ``defeated.'' After building a 85% market share, the
company was acquired by America Online for $10 billion dollars and
continues to be a viable browser with millions of loyal users. More
importantly, Netscape should be congratulated for winning one its
biggest arguments--the browser as a platform threat. It is
clear that the browser has emerged as a platform competing against
operating systems for application hosting. The popularity of
browsers (including Navigator) and browser-based applications
evidences this fact. Therefore, we should tip our hat to the
Netscape
Robert G. Ristroph
11612 Hidden Quail
Austin, TX 78758
December 23, 2001
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 writing with regard to the Justice Department's proposed
settlement with Microsoft. I believe that this settlement should be
scrapped and completely rewritten. Most of the
``restrictions'' placed on Microsoft are already illegal;
what few restrictions are left are impossible to enforce and seem
designed to produce more legal disputes rather than resolve them;
and the proposed en- forcement mechanism is a ludicrous
embarrassment. In addition to scrapping this proposed settlement,
any payment or further employment of the authors should be re-
evaluated in light of this idiocy.
I have read the original complaint of United States and the
several States at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f 1700/1763.htm,
the proposed settlement at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/
9495.htm, the Competitive Im- pact Statement at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, as well as numerous other
sources including the findings of fact and other documents. My own
injury by Microsoft's illegal actions comes from Microsoft's
agreements with OEM's which forced my employer to pay for Windows
when buying a new computer from Dell, which we had no plans to use
Windows, intending it for Linux. This was supposedly addressed in a
prior case to the present one, and yet to this day the same hardware
without a Microsoft license has the same cost.
I wish to examine the elements of the proposed agreement item by
item, and then propose an outline of an alternative settlement.
A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs for
distributing non-Microsoft software. This is already prohibited by
law, given Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed settlement can not
consist of Microsoft agreeing to follow the law in the future; like
other companies in the United States, it has to follow the law
regardless of this settlement.
B. That Microsoft make public it's licensing agreements and
offer the same terms to everyone. This is the only part of the
proposed settlement makes sense, however, OEMs have shown in the
past they were willing to collaborate in Microsoft's illegal
[[Page 30287]]
activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a secrete payback or
special deal, the cooperation of the OEM will make this section
difficult to enforce.
C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain OEM software through
agreements. This is already illegal, like A.
D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy of comment or the paper
it is printed Oil.
E. That communications protocols in Microsoft software be
publicly available. In light of Microsoft's previous behavior in
exploiting secrete calls in it's soft- ware, all of it's source code
should be available for public examination. The suggestion that only
``communications protocols'' be public is problematic be-
cause it leaves open to dispute what consists of a communications
protocol. This is foolish given Microsoft's previous self-serving
interpretations of court orders.
F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against software vendors
for competing against them. This is already against the law given
that Microsoft is a monopoly.
G. That fixed percentage distribution agreements be banned. This
is already against the law. The exceptions listed in this paragraph
are also against the law, creating the suggestion that the United
States will enter into an agreement with Microsoft to allow it to
break the law in some cases.
H. That OEMs and users are allowed to configure the Microsoft
software they buy. This is vague and confusing because it is
difficult to precisely describe what consists of configuring
software, and thus impossible to reliably enforce. In a competitive
market it would be the natural case, and the proposed settlement
should focus on restoring competition.
I. That Microsoft offer licenses to ``intellectual
property'' necessary to allow others to exercise
``alternatives provided under this final judgment.'' The
reference to alternatives provided to others contradicts the final
section of the proposed settlement, which explicitly denies that the
final settlement gives any rights to third parties. Even aside from
that, this section probably denies behavior al- ready illegal, is
riddled with exceptions, vague, and seems designed to produce legal
action rather than remedy.
J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions for Microsoft, as if
there where not enough already.
The Enforcement Authority
A. Access to source code is probably one of the best remedies.
The exceptions and limitation of this access to a committee are
silly.
B. The Technical Committee. It has too few members, it should be
composed of Officers of a United States Federal Court in order to
make it's requests immediately enforceable through Contempt
hearings, and the gag on public statements renders the whole
committee useless. The further restriction that the testimony of
this muzzled and hobbled committee not be admissible in court is a
bit like shooting the deer after it's tied down with it's throat
cut.
C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This section is nonsense.
Other compa- nies manage to obey the law without the use of a
special office. If Microsoft needs one they can implement it without
a judgment.
D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This section seems dedicated to
stipulating that various parties send each other letters before
seeking court hearings, a common practice. 4(d) guts all enforcement
power from the proposed judgment, and suggests that the Attorneys
for the Justice Department don't believe in their own system of
courts.
Third Party Rights
This section is in contradiction with other references to the
submission of complaints to the Technical Committee and the
requirement that Microsoft offer ``intellectual property''
licenses to the third parties so that they can pursue the
alternatives guaranteed them in this proposed final judgment.
In summary, this proposed final judgment is a poor sham for a
capitulation by the Plaintiffs. It's not even a good surrender,
because it's vagueness and self-contradictions guarantee more legal
action; if we must capitulate, at least we should save on legal
costs. It also completely fails to disguise the capitulation in any
way. This is why whoever wrote it should be fired, even if the
Justice Department unwisely chooses to fail to enforce the law as
applies to Microsoft. A real final judgment, which might have the
chance of remedying the situation, would have to be in some way
``self enforcing.'' By ``self enforcing'' I mean
that the remedy by it's nature should preclude further legal
wrangling and evasion efforts by Microsoft. Stipulations on
Microsoft's future behavior inherently have to be enforced, and thus
are not well suited to this case. Furthermore, when the proposed
judgment stipulates that behavior already illegal be banned and then
suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are acquiescing in further law
breaking by Microsoft.
An example of a ``self enforcing'' remedy would be
denying Microsoft copyright protection. No Technical Committee is
required; all that is needed is to reject out of hand cases of
copyright enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus, revoking
copyright privileges for some portion of the works that Microsoft
used to violate the law might be an appropriate remedy. Or perhaps
Microsoft could post substantial bonds against it's future behavior.
Many of the major flaws in this proposed final settlement result
from the needless use of vague and disputable terms, when simple and
undisputable ones would do.
Replace all references to ``Microsoft Middleware''
``Windows Operating System Product'' and such with the
simple phrases ``products of Microsoft'' and ``prod-
ucts of third parties.'' Avoid even the use the term
``software products,'' as Microsoft would produce hardware
required to run their products and then vio- late the agreement. Be
sure the phrase ``products'' is defined to mean anything
Microsoft does, including services.
Replace all references to ``ISVs, IHVs, ICDs, OEMs''
and such with the phrase ``any third party.'' Quibbling
over which member of the alphabet soup a partic- ular entity fell
under is thus eliminated. The final judgment should require no
differentiation between the various consumers and companies
interacting with Microsoft. This also remedies the fault that the
current proposed judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any third party
from the benefits of what legal behavior is required by claiming
they do not have a viable business plan. I hope you find these
suggestions helpful in writing a real judgment.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Ristroph
RENATA B. HESSE
ANTITRUST DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
6oI D STREET NW
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-001
I0 DECEMBER, 2001
Dear Renata B. Hesse,
I am a concerned citizen, unwilling Microsoft customer forced to
use their unpleasant products because of their unassailable
monopoly, and a long time member of the computer industry.
I am writing to you to protest the terms of the Proposed Final
Judgement, in specific the failure of this Judgement to address the
pivotal role that the open software movement has played in the
genesis of the Internet age, and its legitimate ongoing
contributions which are ignored by the Judgement s terms and will be
harmed by the Judgement s execution.
To enumerate but three of thousands of valuable not for profit
software development efforts which remain critical to the ongoing
viability of the net and which will be harmed by the Proposed Final
Judgement because they are beneficiaries of neither Section
III(J)(2) under (c) as meet[ing] rea- sonable, objective standards
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and
viability of its business .... nor under Section Ill(D) as the
footnotes hold this section in force only to commercial concerns:
Apache is the Internet server that made the net possible. It is
the most viable competitor to IIS, Microsoft s server architecture.
Without Apache the net would grind to a halt. There is no commercial
contender to IIS, the entire competitive landscape is between IIS
and Apache and a few other open source servers. Since IIS is
stunningly, almost fraudulently insecure, the Proposed Final
Judgement weakens the Nation should it not aggressively protect the
better engineered open source efforts from Microsoft s predatory
tactics.
BSD, especially in its most popular flavor freeBSD, and its
younger but bigger brother Linux present a real and viable challenge
to Microsoft in the server market, are gaining in the workstation
market, and would, if they could be made compatible with Microsoft s
industry crushing Office, be a viable contender on the desktop.
These efforts are undertaken in that most American of spirits: for
the good of all. They provide real alternatives to Microsoft;
significant and meaningful improvements in performance and security
to users who appreciate these things when compared to Microsoft's
invariably flawed products, and competition which is perhaps
Microsoft s only remaining motive for fixing its failures. While
major security holes are exposed in IIS every month or so, despite
Microsoft s efforts to sweep
[[Page 30288]]
them under the rug, no security hole has been discovered in NetBSD
in more than four years. These superior products are run without
marketing and lobbying budgets and will be crushed by Microsoft
which will endeavor to make them as incompatible as possible with
their desk-top monopoly (if their efforts to make them outright
illegal fail).
This message will reach you through one or many servers running
Sendmail. A near perfect application which relies on free and open
standards established for the routing of electronic mail.
Since Microsoft will be under no obligation to share standards
with the not-for-profit organization that maintains Sendmail, it is
quite certain that Microsoft will do whatever they can to force all
Sendmail administrators to switch to an expensive, fault ridden
Microsoft product, leveraging their monopoly on the desktop to do so
unless the DOJ alters the Proposed Final Judgement to protect open
source at least as effectively as it protects whatever pathetic
vestiges of the commercial market still stand to chal- lenge
Microsoft s otherwise unassailable monopoly.
The Proposed Final Settlement fails utterly to address the
critical role of the open source movement and is therefore utterly
unacceptable to me as a harmed party.
Sincerely,
David Gessel
BLACK Rose TECHNOLOGY
5233 FOOTHILL BLVD.
OAKLAND, CA 946oi
5Io 290 3849 (CELL)
5Io 536 toO5 (FAX)
WWW.BLACKROSETECH.COM
Nurth Darnlina Beneral Assemhlu Senate Dhaber SENATOR SCOTT E.
THOMAS 3rD DISTRICT
Raleigh: 622 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING Raleigh, NC
27601-2808 (919) 733-6275 (919) 838-0208 Fax E-
MAIL: [email protected]
DIStriCT: PO BOX 12530 NEW BERN, NC 2856 l (252) 633-6888
(252) 637-2450 Fax
COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY II (Vice CHAIR)
APPROPRIATIONS
JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE
AGRICULTURE/ENVIRONMENT/NATURAL RESOURCES
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE & CONSUMER PROTECTION
REDISTRICTING
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION
January 9, 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) 307-1454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the
Department of Justice and several states, including North Carolina,
have reached with Microsoft.
I will be pleased to see this matter resolved because it will be
a boost for the technology sector, a larger force in the North
Carolina economy. I believe that the certainty of the settlement
will promote new investment in technology and will enhance
competition in all aspects of the technology industry which will
benefit consumers.
With this litigation settled, the technology industry can
continue its recovery and growth. The settlement represents a
reasonable compromise that has earned bipartisan support. I urge the
Department of Justice and the court to approve this settlement.
Sincerely,
Senator Scott Thomas
ST/cbj
MTC-00033794
State Headquarters
211 East 7th Street, Suite 620
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (812) 477-9821
Fax: (S12) 480-0709
www.texasgop.org
Susan Weddington, Chairman
January 7, 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:
It goes without saying that the settlement agreement between the
U.S. Government and Microsoft comes at a critical time when our
economy and nation most need reconciliation.
The proposed settlement requires significant changes in the way
Microsoft develops, licenses and markets its software. This
settlement is fair. It prevents Microsoft from abusing the strength
that it derives from its operating system, but also allows the
company to continue innovating in all areas of software development.
Microsoft in Texas is a major employer and contributor to our
economy. In addition, Microsoft and its employees in Texas donate
millions of dollars annually to a large variety of charitable
causes.
I congratulate, you on developing a strong but fair settlement.
Sincerely,
Susan Weddington Chairman
MTC-00033795
From: Tom Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: usdoj comments
For the first time in my life I am compelled to contact an
office of my Federal government.
I am appalled at the ``settlement'' your department
has reached with Microsoft. It disgusts me to see that a corporation
that abuses its monopoly power and lies in federal court about its
actions can receive virtually no penalty for that behavior. Your
office is supposed to protect people like me from the likes of
Microsoft. I voted for G.W. Bush but would not have done so were I
aware that this obvious sellout would be the outcome. I'm sure that
the decision to ``settle'' in this manner was cloaked in
the guise of stimulating our weakening economy. What in effect you
have done is to enhance the ability of that bully corporation
(Microsoft) to further stifle ingenuity and creativity at the
expense of the consumer and the taxpayer. This
``settlement'' will serve to only embolden Microsoft in
the ruthless use of its power to crush their rivals.
Today I am ashamed of my government.
Thomas P. Wright
Sr. Software Engineer
Forte Industries
6037 Commerce Ct.
Mason, OH 45040
(513) 398-2800x206 (Voice)
(513) 398-2837 (FAX)
This email has been scanned by MailMax.
http://www.maximizeit.net
MTC-00033796
Yanta, Judy
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:38 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: microsoft Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to say that I think Microsoft might be let off too
easy. They have an illegal monopoly on operating systems in the US
and abroad. They should have to open up the OS market to
competition.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Michael Brennan
II0 Beresini Lane
Hollister, CA 95023
[email protected]
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
MTC-00033797
Yanta, Judy
From: Janet Unger [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:36 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Your settlement is pathetic. I can't believe all that money and
time was wasted, only to give MS barely a slap on the wrist. Once
again, the consumer loses to a company who can cause the government
to completely cave. For shame.
Janet Unger
21 Forestdale Road
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
Janet Unger
MTC-00033798
Yanta, Judy
From: David Piper [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:40 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Dear Attorney General:
Microsoft settlement of 1 billion to the 12,500 poorest schools
is forcing schools to use just Microsoft programs and giving
children no alternative to Microsoft. This is what a monopoly does
and is. This is at the expense of the children. As an example: the
Mahoning County Library system in Ohio uses only Microsoft after
libraries got money form Microsoft: even though Boardman schools use
WordPerfect the library refused
[[Page 30289]]
to install WordPerfect on the library computers in the school
district.
This makes companies change to Microsoft software or spend more
money on training. Add to this that as a programmer you have to
follow Microsoft's programing or you face the program of not being
ungradable to the next OS. Of course Microsoft can make changes then
incorporate the changes into the next OS.
And finely Microsoft's OS from version 3.0 to ME were at best
not stable at worse designed to make people upgrade to the next OS.
In any case you had to paid to fix the problems of the OS your using
just to get a different set of problems in the next OS. Windows 95
should have been NT 3.5 made for a home user and run Windows 3.1
software. Just like XP is a home version of Windows 2000. IBM had
OS/2 version 2 running Windows 3.1 software if you had 3.1 installed
on the computer. This allowed Microsoft to pick the pocket of the
consumer for new OSs and stop any innovation from other programers.
The solution is that any owner of Windows 95 should get XP FREE.
Also any money Microsoft gives for ether settlement or gift should
not be tied to using Microsoft products.
David Piper
7550 Sugartree Dr.
Youngstown, Ohio 445125430
330 758 5182
fax/voice 330 629 6080
[email protected]
MTC-00033799
Technology Research
Fax to Attorney Generals
Justice vs. No Justice 21660
1/16/02
In certain states and cities, you can BUY outcomes in the legal
system. If there is any elected official who stands for what is
right, it is Attorney General. Not District Attorneys. Not the
Attorney General of the U.S. State Attorney Generals. So far you
have not ``stepped up to the plate.''
The dot.com bubble/bust primarily was a telecommunications
phenomenon. The huge regional bell operating companies were faced
with new upstart competitors. They both bought communications
equipment like there was no tomorrow. That's why companies like
Nortel, Cisco, Lucent, and Corning (fiber optics &
communications gear) went through the roof. Then the bust occurred.
Nortel had 95,000 employees. Now it has 47,000.
Neither of above phenomenon has anything to do with Microsof
with the exception that Microsoft had no breakthroughs like Visicaic
nor Windows (Xerox/Apple origin). If anything, Microsoft has slowed
PC growth. Why? Because it has made small incremental changes to its
Windows operating system. No major breakthroughs. That is why U.S.
corporations, for the most part have no real interest in XP. What
they have now works well. Why pay for both hardware and software
upgrades when what you have now works very well. If you go wimp on
Microsoft, the economy will NOT get a boost. Microsoft is a
monopoly. In fact, it is very mean-spirited and anticompetitive as
well. Step up to the plate. Do your job. Didn't you have a teacher
who taught you the difference betwen RIGHT and WRONG. Do what is
right.
If you ``cave in,'' as some of you seem prone to do, I
reserve right to write the most important people in your home tonw
and tell them you are a little wimp. That you had responsibility on
your shoulders and you shirked it. That you are all-time weanie. The
country is strong today because people did what is right and worked
hard. Please do what is right. Life is short. This may be one of the
most important decision in your life. Don't fuck it up. Be a man/
woman. Don't be a friggin copout.
--John Staple, Staple Technology Research, 713 288-8800
[email protected] Yogi Berra: ``It ain't over til
it's over.'' This bullshit is FAR FROM OVER. John Staples.
MTC-00033800
Yanta, Judy
From: Eric [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:35 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Mr. John Ashcroft,
It is with much embarrassment that our DOJ basically caved in
with regards to making a settlement with Microsoft. I have read the
settlement agreement and I can't believe how many loopholes there
are for Microsoft. It appears that because of the recent terrorist
attacks, the DOJ is letting Microsoft go. So, Microsoft crushed
Netscape, continues to use their Monopolistic practices, is planning
on continuing to use their monopolistic powers to gain control of
the Internet, and the DOJ is just slapping their wrists with NO
penalty at all. I am outraged as a US citizen as well as a consumer.
This settlement in no way protects me from Microsoft. Maybe
Microsoft did the right thing and started contributing money to the
political parties, perhaps this is what this was all about to begin
with. Who knows. What I do know, is that it appears that there is no
one with any technical expertise that was involved with this
agreement. Shame on you and the DOJ. You have just proved that if
you have enough money and are powerful enough that you too can break
any and all laws and not be brought to justice.
Eric R. Fairhurst
11181 Harrington Lane
Fishers, IN 46038
MTC-00033801
Stoney, Ericka
From: Robin Harris [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I was angered by your capitulation to Microsoft in the recent
settlement talks. The Sherman Antitrust Act is over I00 years old
and is a matter of settled public policy. Yet you treat egregious
and repeated violations of it and the resulting harm to our economy
and our global leadership of the information technology industry as
worthy of only a slap on the wrist. The IT company I am an officer
of does not compete with Microsoft and I use many of their products.
But predatory behavior by monopolists is bad for everyone, a common
sense judgement reached over a century ago, but a judgement you
evidently don't the have the wit to endorse.
You've given every corporate violator of our nation's laws new
reason to resist negotiation and cooperation. America will be paying
for your lack of backbone for decades to come. I hope the campaign
contributions your party expects from Microsoft are seen for what
they are: a payoff for craven dereliction of duty. I hope the
State's Attorneys General see fit to the do the duty you've shirked.
Sincerely,
Robin Harris
10210 NE Points Dr
Suite 300
Kirkland, WA 98033
MTC-00033802
Yanta, Judy
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:29 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments ``Microsoft case''
Dear Attorney General & Ms. Kollar-Kotelly:
Concerning this Microsoft case: As a consumer and user of
Microsoft products, I am totally disgraced by our system of Justice
not standing up to this Monopoly.
They have put out falty products, that have costed hundreds of
Trillions of dollars to consumers and businesses. Not to mention
lost time.
How is it that Microsoft be treated any differently that another
business? Are they above the laws of the United States?
I have as a consumer asked Microsoft to correct the falty
products and replace or compensate all. They have ignored me. Why?
Because they feel they are above the laws, and have to answer to no
one.
I feel that they need to be ordered to recall all their falty
products and make restitution to all. They knew that they were
selling incomplete or poor products, but they still sold them? They
made their Windows 95,98,ME operating systems so a consumer has to
upgrade pay them more money just to use it. I work for a small
computer business and our tech spends some days 2-3 hours a
day ,at Microsoft support site trying to fix their problems? At whos
expense? The business owners. If they were anyother business they
would have been forced to recall. Sounds like they have committed
consumer Fraud to me, at the expense of millions of consumers?
Please see that Justice prevails.
Thank you.
Kevin f. Bugnacki
18 Walnut Street
Baldwinsville,NY 13027-1116
MTC-00033803
Yanta, Judy
From: Gerry Evans [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:51 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
HON. JOHN ASHCROFT:
I realize the chances of AG Ashcroft actually reading this are
probably slim and
[[Page 30290]]
none. However, as the old movie adage goes--I'm mad as hell,
and I won't take it anymore.
I am sick and tired of self-serving, avaricious lawyers
extending the outlandish persecution of Microsoft beyond human
understanding. This is in specific reference to an article in the
11-20-01 WSJ siting California attorneys opposed to a
``reasonable'' settlement from Microsoft because they
feel--California consumers will be unfairly treated. I
say--BS!
The only people hurt by the senseless and continued drubbing of
Microsoft are Microsoft owners/employees, Microsoft shareholders,
AND the consuming public as a whole. For God's sake, if it ain't
broke, why fix it? I am very satisfied with the absolutely and
positively FREE web browser and other services given to me by MS.
The idea of continuing the litigation ad infinitum is ridiculous and
sympathetic to the same type of ``consumer screw'' that
resulted from the dismemberment of AT&T and produced higher
prices for local service, lower levels of consumer satisfaction for
the same local service, and pockets full of cash for specialty
carriers who were allowed to ``cherry pick'' from the tree
nurtured by AT&T into the best phone system in the world.
I say, ``To hell with California and its cadre of blood-
sucking lawyers.'' And, while I am not privy to such
information, I would wager MS is somewhere behind the scene in
provisioning the U.S. with its current software capabilities in
carrying on our war on terrorism. Ayn Rand is surely turning over in
her grave. MS offers an arm and a leg, and the Californicator
lawyers want to snatch its head also. Enough is enough; shut down
the damn litigators nationwide in their quest to undermine a
national resource. The consumers deserve it.
Gerry B. Evans
3350 S. Justin
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
MTC-00033804
Stoney, Ericka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pamela M. [[email protected]]
Friday, December 07, 2001 11:56 AM
ASKDOJ
USDOJ Comments
Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
I understand through Reuters that the Microsoft monopoly case is
coming to a conclusion. A $1 billion dollar fine is being
imposed--one billion dollars to schools.
On the face of it, this sounds wonderful. I am a teacher.
However, this may destroy a rival, and frankly BETTER, but smaller
company--APPLE. Apple has a far more stable operating system
since the inception of Macintosh. Apple has been the choice for
years for graphic designers. The one market share Apple has because
they worked very hard to get it is the schools. They got it because
Apple sustained the graphics necessary to keep the attention of
children. Historically, Microsoft stole the Windows operating system
concept from Apple to begin with. Throughout the years Microsoft has
yet to perfect Windows, the Microsoft version of the Apple operating
system, to the point where it doesn't ``crash''.
Apple has always had a more stable design for its operating
system. For this reason, schools like it far better--there is
less time spent on fixing a computer and more time teaching (teacher
has to fix, either during class or after school; ergo important
lesson time is lost).
While Apple is filing a brief for consideration by the judge
overseeing the case, you have direct access to the prosecutor who
will recommend a course of action. Schools need the continuing use
of the Apple Macintosh computers. The ruling to infuse schools with
$1 billion of Microsoft hardware/software will destroy Apple; Apple
will lose its primary market. Schools will lose the operating system
that takes less teacher intervention to fix. The computers, then,
will not be used, nullifying the whole point. Teachers simply cannot
and will not stop every lesson 14 times to fix the
``crashes'' of an unreliable operating system. Please,
discuss the impact of this ruling on the social good of American
school children. Frankly, I think it would be better to either
allocate the billion to getting the elderly of our society online or
building schools for the children of Afghanistan.
Sincerely,
Pamela A. Mahony
1231 N. Columbus Ave. #1A
Glendale, CA 91202
(818) 500-1588
MTC-00033805
Yanta, Judy
From: Christine Keller [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:56 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft
Christine Keller
9181 Market Ave
Hartville, OH 44632-8715
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
Attorney General Ashcroft:
A settlement in which Microsoft has to pay the bill is not in
the ``public interest''. Paying the legal staffs of the
federal and state DOJs, Microsoft, possibly of the AOL conglomerate,
and all the class action seeking lawyers is not in the ``public
interest''. Any such result will mean an increase in Microsoft
prices and the entire industry will increase their prices to keep
up. We do not need another IBM or AT&T settlement that only
``busts'' a good company, redistributes business and
forces consumers to pay higher prices for the resulting fiasco.
Very, very and angrily Sincerely,
Christine F. Keller
MTC-00033806
Yanta, Judy
From: E McCann [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:30 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
This is regarding the proposed ``settlement'' given in
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Where, in this settlement, is Microsoft being punished? Where is
there actual oversight? Where are the guarantees that they won't be
able to continue their practice of running roughshod over the
marketplace? It's as if GM managed to strongarm fuel stations, tire
manufacturers, etc. into making their products ``more
compatible'' with GM at the expense of Ford, Mercedes, and the
like, with their only ``weak'' market with real
competition being in interstate semi trucks. In this hypothetical
situation, they're brought to court, found guilty, and as
``punishment'' not only are allowed to define what a
``vehicle'' is for purposes of describing what's affected
by the settlement, but also need to provide the 50 poorest trucking
companies with GM trucks!
This is punishment? This rectifies the situation? This is a
remedy? What I would like to see, instead, would be:
1. Don't allow Microsoft to ``have to'' spend money to
supply schools with computers (which will end up being based on
Microsoft software, and eventually make more money for them through
their planned ``.net'' service and software
``subscriptions.'') While attempting to help schools is
admirable--it has nothing to do in this form with rectifying
the situation. Why give them--not just a toehold, but a whole
beachhead--in a market they do not dominate already? If they
MUST spend money on schools, have them submit the sum to the court
to distribute and let the schools spend them on the systems that
best suit their needs--with no Microsoft involvement other than
sending the money to the court.
2. Create a court-appointed body that will oversee Microsoft's
coding, marketing, and business practices. Microsoft should have a
*minority* presence, not \1/3\ with an option to appoint another \1/
3\ of the committee. They would have to justify changes in standards
(such as the Microsoft Word .doc format, which changes with *every*
release) to this committee, who would have the power to deny the
ability to make these changes.
3. Have them release the FULL source for their products.
Microsoft does NOT like open source--because it removes control
from them. However, it has been proven with Linux and other open
source projects to be an effective way to create an efficient
product, and patch problems with that product in a much more timely
manner than Microsoft is now able to do. It also allows competing
software manufacturers (such as WordPerfect/Corel, IBM, etc.) to be
sure they are seeing the complete OS, and eliminates any suspicion
of ``favored'' companies or Microsoft divisions having an
advantage with ``secret,'' undocumented, or
``hidden'' APIs and calls.
4. Have an independant body create the definitions for
``operating system,'' and other terms, that don't have
loopholes in them that Microsoft can use to get around any legal
restraints.
5. Investigate Microsoft's licenses--more important now
than ever, with their ``subscriptions'' and forced
upgrades.
6. Have an independant body oversee Microsoft's upgrades and
procing.
7. Have Microsoft break Internet Explorer (and future products,)
Outlook
[[Page 30291]]
Express, MSN Messenger, etc. from the operating system. Not only
does this restore some slight competitive nature to the market, but
will have a side effect of helping MS's operating systems run
better. Remove the proprietary ``help'' system that forces
you to install Internet Explorer as well. Regular HTML works
perfectly well, and is an open standard.
8. Place the W3C in charge of standards, such as HTML, Java, and
the like. They do this already, but give them the ability to reject
``extended'' standards (and give them some teeth while
they're doing it) such as Microsoft's ActiveX and other HTML
``additions'' (or ventures like J++, C%, etc. that work
only on Windows.)
These are just some suggestions... Microsoft *has* stifled
innovation, not created it. And they're still working on ways (with
strategies such as .net, and software ``subscriptions'')
to lock people and businesses into Microsoft-only or Microsoft-
dependant models.
Eric McCann
907 Dean #104
Coquille, OR 97423
MTC-00033807
Yanta, Judy
From: Chris Hamady [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:57 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft has once again hurt consumers and the U.S.
Government
ATTACHMENT.TXT
USDOJ,
I feel compelled to write to you to voice a complaint against a
company that continues to treat consumers and the state and national
governments with arrogance and disdain. Recently, it became public
knowledge of a security hole in WindowsXP that can allow a hacker
complete and total control over a Windows XP based computer once it
is connected to the internet. This in and of itself is statement
enough against Microsoft, yet to my shock, it is being reported that
Microsoft was informed of the security hole a full 5 weeks before
ever notifying the consumers, business community, and the government
of the United States, all who were at risk while Microsoft reaped
profits acquired through the withholding of this information from
the public. To make matters worse, they advertised that Windows XP
is a ``new standard in security'' for computer operating
systems. I am not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be some sort of
product fraud leveled against consumers. Please look into this on
behalf of me and all consumers who want a fair and balanced
technology marketplace, and reconsider the current settlement with a
company, that I feel, will never stop treating consumers,
competitors, and the government with total arrogance, illegality,
and disregard.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Christopher M. Hamady
8941 Sylvania Ave.
Sylvania, OH
43560
Christopher M. Hamady
[email protected]
(419) 843-8890
MY WWW HOMEPAGE IS AVAILABLE AT:
http://mustec.bgsu.edu/�7Ee;chrismh
MTC-00033808
Yanta, Judy
From: Colin Valentine [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:10 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
This is an example of what Microsoft is doing! settled!
The DOJ should not have
To: (Microsoft Corporation)
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: Outlook Express
Two days ago I scanned a printed page using a Visioneer scanner,
and sent the file as an attachment to my own e-mail address. The
letter displayed with the following message: ``OE removed
access to the following unsafe attachments in your mailbox: december
MAX''
I have been satisfactorily using the Visioneer scanner and
sending the resulting files as attachments using Outlook Express
since July of 2001. The message described above displays in a narrow
bar across the top portion of the e-mail page. The operating system
is Windows 98, in a Compaq Presario. There were no software changes
in the same time frame. I have been using a very widely used
firewall for about the last year. Can you remove this undesired and
unauthorized interferance by your Outlook Express application?
Thank you,
Colin Valentine
[email protected]
(865) 681-7694
1715 Linda Lane
Maryville, TN 37803
MTC-00033809
Yanta, Judy
From: Julian Huff [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:12 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments(PIs forward to the Attorney General)
Sir,
I find it necessary to comment on the proposed settlement
between the U.S. Go This trial has proceeded under keen
professionals like myself. it is ridiculous that a company which has
been found guilty of of non-competitive actions, including giving
its products away in order to force other companies out of business,
should be allowed a settlement in which it gives away well over a
billion dollars worth of its product and services, especially in an
area in which it does not already enjoy a majority of market share.
How is this going to lead to competition in the marketplace? The
educational market is one of the FEW areas that Microsoft does not
currently dominate. How will this affect companies like Apple
Computer, who are currently competing in that market? Do you think
that schools will choose to use quality and competitive pricing as
market tools to their own (and those other company's) advantage? Or
will they take the free products, further increasing Microsofts
monopoly and power?
The fact that this type of a settlement has been approved by the
prosecution is a sad statement on the state of Justice in America
today. This is a laughable solution and we will look back on it one
day saying, ``Remember when there were lots of alternative
products WITHOUT the Microsoft label on them?'' Then we'll
sadly shake our heads and wonder what would have happened if the
Government had decided not to repress America's entrepreneurs and
sell out the consumer by not punishing a monopolistic bully like
Microsoft when it had the chance.
Thank you,
Julian P. Huff
Manager--Desktop Services
PETsMART, Inc.
19601 North 27th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85027
* 623.587.2407 (office)
* 623.580.6109 (fax)
MTC-00033810
Stoney, Ericka
From: Libby Abright [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:59 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments-Microsoft win over the people
Where is the protection for me and businesses which serve me in
the Microsoft case? Who was bribed to get this decision-- or
are our govt. people that stupid?
I have stock and don't want to see the company decimated, but I
have been hurt, as has every one who uses a computer by the
Microsoft monopoly and their defective software.
Don't you see the damage your settlement is doing? Look at the
new software that puts restrictions on people who buy and use the
software--we can't even use it as we please!
Libby Albright
228 Ximeno Ave
Long Beach CA 90803
MTC-00033811
Stoney, Ericka
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:13 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: microsoft
Just a line or two to let you know how I feel about the
microsoft case. Microsoft is one of the biggest holdings in many
people's 401k, Ira.s,etc. Since the start of the anti-trust case the
value of the stock has dropped. At a time when you want people to be
less depended on social security and max out on their 401k plans,
and keep up their IRA.s, you not only go after microsoft but also
attack the many people who looked to the company for fiancial
security, through their retirement plans. Ease up, and the stock
could possibly rise restoring people's confidence not only in MSFT,
but the stock market in general.
Thanks.
John McDevitt,
469 Foss Ave.,
[[Page 30292]]
Drexel Hilt, Pa. 19026
E-mail: [email protected]
MTC-00033812
Stoney, Ericka
From: Tom Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: usdoj comments
For the first time in my life I am compelled to contact an
office of my Federal government.
I am appalled at the ``settlement'' your department
has reached with Microsoft. It disgusts me to see that a corporation
that abuses its monopoly power and lies in federal court about its
actions can receive virtually no penalty for that behavior. Your
office is supposed to protect people like me from the likes of
Microsoft. I voted for G.W. Bush but would not have done so were I
aware that this obvious sellout would be the outcome. I'm sure that
the decision to ``settle'' in this manner was cloaked in
the guise of stimulating our weakening economy. What in effect you
have done is to enhance the ability of that bully corporation
(Microsoft) to further stifle ingenuity and creativity at the
expense of the consumer and the taxpayer. This
``settlement'' will serve to only embolden Microsoft in
the ruthless use of its power to crush their rivals.
Today I am ashamed of my government.
Thomas P. Wright
Sr. Software Engineer
Forte Industries
6037 Commerce Ct.
Mason, OH 45040
(513) 398-2800x206 (Voice)
(513) 398-2837 (FAX)
This email has been scanned by MailMax.
http://www.maximizeit.net
MTC-00033812 0001
MTC-00033813
Stoney, Ericka
From: Tom Loveman [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:38 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Are you out of your minds!
The Microsoft settlement proposal is a farce! Hundreds of
companies and countless technologies have been oppressed, destroyed
and/or plundered by Microsoft over the years. This decree does
nothing more than LEGALIZE what they've been doing for decades! Now
they have the goverment's permission to supress ideas that compete
with their own, and to abscond technologies and implement them
internally rather than give credit to the companies that create
them.
Are you so binded by a recession and a war that you're willing
to leave the hen house guarded by the fox!?
Microsoft was found GUILTY but the punishment does not fit the
crime. Innovation? HA! The only section of Microsoft that creates
ANYTHING innovative or of value is the Macintosh Business Unit
because Apple users are so far ahead of the crap Microsoft puts out
for PCs that the MBU has to do innovative things.
Tom Loveman
Tom Loveman
19201 Van Aken Blvd
Suite 513
Shaker Heights, OH 44122
216-561-9222 (H)
216-682-3104 (W)
MTC-00033814
Yanta, Judy
From: Jim Eddings [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:53 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments- Microsoft Settlement
I applaud you for settling the Microsoft case, but wish to
present one caveat.
More and more they are requiring their users to sign up for
their Passport service to function with their other, unrelated
products. This requires users to register with them, whether they
want to or not. For example, users of some Microsoft game software
are required to use Passport before the Microsoft technical support
will even answer their email, even though the two products have
nothing to do with each other. I know many Microsoft software users
who are avoiding newer products so they will not have to register
with Passport. The Passport service has suffered from documented
security problems.
I implore you to build into your settlement language that would
prevent Microsoft from forcing their users into this or any other
product or service for any reason, and specifically forbids this
from being a requirement for technical support on any product except
itself. Microsoft has been moving toward subscription licensing to
lock in their revenue stream even while their anti-trust case is
going on, and these Passport requirements are appalling. It appears
they are trying to prevent us from using anyone else's software with
this practice!
Thank you very much for your consideration,
Jim Eddings
629 Torrence Dr.,
Gastonia, NC 28052
Information Systems Director,
Acme Petroleum & Fuel Co.,
Gastonia, NC 28054
(long-time Microsoft customer who loves the products and who is
becoming very disgusted with their business practices)
MTC-00033815
Yanta,Judy
From: John Ridge [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:08 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ%20Comments
Sirs:
I had thought that you had set up on the website a forum to
solicit comments regarding the sustice's settlement with Microsoft.
If you have then you have made it exceedingly difficult to find
because I cannot. That in itself is probably on comment on your
desire to hear other opinions.
I would remind you that the Justice Department is here to insure
that the laws are enforced to protect the people. With your proposed
settlement with Microsoft you are not fulfilling this promise. It is
obvious to everyone that this case went from a prosecution of the
laws to one of political expediency. This is nothing more than a
slap on the wrist to the biggest monopoly since Standard Oil and
everyone knows it. The American people's only hope now with this
issue is that the states will be immune from politics and do what
they are paid to do, protect the people.
Thank you for reading my comments.
John Ridge
19 Stover Road
Rochester, NY 14624
[email protected]
MTC-00033816
Yanta, Judy
From: james p liebmann [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:23 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject:USDOJ Comments--Microsoft Settlement
I am embarassed to call myself Republican in light of this very
disappointing settlement. The terms of the settlement are so
ineffectual as to be meaningless. More small companies will get no
financing for fear that Microsoft might enter that same product
area. Other companies will be squeezed to death like Netscape was.
I am sorry to say that Attorney General Ashcroft has squandered
some of his, and President Bush's, political capital, not to mention
my tax money. The settlement terms do a great disservice to the
American Public by allowing this company, which has been found by
the courts to be a Monoplist, to get off with essentially no
punishment and no effective change of behavior.
James P. Liebmann
18 Bromley Rd.
Pittsford, NY 14534-2934
MTC-00033817
Renata B. Hesse--Antitrust Division
US. Dept of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am writing as a consumer and an amateur student of computer
technology. I work for a medical research company in a position
outside our Information Systems department. I have been an early
adopter of home computing technology since the 70's.
I purchased my first IBM PC in 1981 and I have the receipt. The
operating system (DOS) cost $40 and the actual computer (without
even a hard drive or a monitor) cost well over $2,000. This came to
well under 3% of the cost of the system. Today I can buy a vastly
more powerful computer with a hard drive and monitor and much more
memory for under $1000. The reduction in price is because of
competition in the hardware sector. The cost of the operating system
for such a new system would be more than double even though it has
not advanced as much as the hardware. And the hardware is much more
capital intensive to develop particularly considering the reduced
margins. This imbalance and the actions of Microsoft to achieve this
condition are well documented in the Findings of Fact (in the case
before Judge Jackson). I have read the
[[Page 30293]]
Findings of Fact as part of my interest in computer technology.
I am writing to express my complete dissatisfaction with the
proposed settlement. It is not sufficient by a LONG shot. It will
not restore competition nor will it punish the misuse of monopoly
power. And finally (and this is my unique observation it seems) it
will do nothing to restore the vigor to the development of software.
Innovative software development ``looks'' like a
Competitive market but I content it has been smothered along with
many of Microsoft's competitors. The opportunity to make money from
novel and innovative software has been deeply hurt by the abuse of
the Microsoft monopoly. There must be an opportunity to make money
and prosper m order to get investment money. We should have many
times the number of innovative software companies that we have
today. Today we have many companies using Microsoft tools and
writing Microsoft programs and never able to get outside this narrow
and restrictive canyon. Any effective settlement needs to address
this situation by restoring opportunity.
Finally, I am just now reformed by the news wires of the
proposed settlement by the 9 states not signing on to the DOJ
settlement. They have a MUCH more realistic proposal. A bare bones
operating system Just might open a window for other competltors to
come into the marketplace with innovative competitive products in
this new lower tier market. This is the type of thinking that needs
to be applied to the problem. The very best solution is to break the
company up into several smaller competitive companies and that
should never have been removed from the table.
Ben Bowers
420 Fruit Farm Rd
Royersford, PA 19468??
MTC-00033818
December 9, 2001
Pablo Oliva
60 Lehigh Aisle
Irvine, CA 92612
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mrs. Hesse:
I am a web developer in the Los Angeles area in California. I
recently ran across this article online at http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html which stated the following:
``The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information
Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-
profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and
Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement.
It is as though they don't even exist.
Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business ....
`` So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the fight to
effectively kill these products.
Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs),
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers
(lAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify
commercial concerns only.
But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the
Department of Justice itself-- have no rights. It is a good
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't
run Windows.''
I hope that you understand the severity of this matter. The Open
Source Software movement is truly a remarkable thing. Many great
products have resulted from this movement. The Open Source community
has spawned innovation and quality in software that is unsurpassed
by Microsoft or any other commercial outfit. This movement and
community is a great and weighty threat to Microsoft's business
model. I encourage you to come to a complete understanding of the
impact that the language of the settlement, which the above article
sites, will have on the Open Source Software community. There is a
big chance that Microsoft will have the ability to use this language
to place pressure on and ultimately strangle the life out of the
Open Source community... and this is an anti-trust case isn't it?
Regards,
Pablo Oliva
MTC-00033819
GRIMES & SMITH
CHARLES T. SMITH
(843) 546-6131
JOHN P. GRIMES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1112 HIGHMARKET STREET
FAX: (843) 527-6692
GEORGETOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA 29440
December 17, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: United States of America v. Microsoft corporation
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I have carefully reviewed the proposed Final Judgement in the
referenced action and the opinions issued by the District Court and
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The minor restrictions in the proposed Final Judgement are
rendered meaningless by the extensive exceptions and exclusions.
Even if the proposed Final Judgement can fairly be interpreted to
prohibit some conduct, there is no effective enforcement mechanism.
The proposed Final Judgement does not address Microsoft
Corporation's serious violations of the antitrust statutes and does
not serve the public interest.
Sincerely,
Charles T. Smith
MTC-00033820
Cole Thompson
2101 Webster Street, 20th floor
Oakland CA 94612
Tel.: 1-510-627-2245
Fax: 1-510-627-3030
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Dear Attorney Hesse:
As a Senior Web Developer for Kaiser Permanente, one of the,
nations's largest healthcare providers, I am deeply concerned about
the proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. For about
the last five years, I have noticed that truly innovative
technologies from small companies in the computing industry have
tended to be withdrawn from the marketplace, apparently due to
pressure or threats from Microsoft. During this same five years, the
cost of Microsoft software has steadily increased, even allowing for
inflation, while the cost of other companies'' software (Sun
Microsystems, Oracle, Sybase, Borland and many more) has almost
without exception decreased quite dramatically. The costs of doing
business as a software company have not increased during this time.
The only reason Microsoft has bucked the overall trend toward less
expensive software is that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power, and
dictates prices to computer vendors. These arbitrarily increased
costs are ultimately borne by American consumers. Consumers and
businesses are damaged in just the same way that they would be if
the cost of gasoline were doubled.
At a minimum, I see the following items as required for any
meaningful remedy of Microsoft's conduct:
--Obligate Microsoft to include support for the Java platform
in Windows, as asked for by the attorneys general of California and
other states.
--Require Microsoft to make available to the general public
(not just selected companies that Microsoft likes) the full details
of formats used for storing data in files and databases.
--Require Microsoft to make available to the general public
(not just selected companies that Microsoft likes) the full details
of any networking protocols it uses to communicate between
computers.
The importance of the last two points cannot be overstated. The
most credible competition to Microsoft is coming from software
developed in non-profit settings
[[Page 30294]]
such as university labs and loosely-knit cooperative consortiums
(the so-called ``Open Source'' community). The proposed
settlement would deliberately exclude these most promising sources
of Competition from access to Microsoft file and network protocol
information, which would be a grievous error at this stage of
remediation.
Thank you for your attention.
Cole D. Thompson
Senior Web Developer, Kaiser Permanente
MTC-00033821
Charles Bennington
Oddcast Inc.
589 8th Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
December 20, 2001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
In my position as Chief Systems Architect for Oddcast, Inc., a
software company based in New York, I have had the opportunity to
observe the effects of Microsoft's monopolies on our business and
our competitors.
I am writing to submit my comments on the proposed final order
in the antitrust case against Microsoft. The remedies described in
order do not seem at all satisfactory and will have a negative
effect for business who wish to compete with Microsoft.
First off, the fact that the structural remedy initially ordered
by Judge Jackson has been abandoned is quite disturbing. Judge
Jackson reached his conclusions after being involved in the case for
a long time. His proposed remedies were a reaction not just to the
severity of the crime but also to the manipulative manner in which
Microsoft behaved--and continues to behave.
The new remedies are not strong enough to penalize a company
that has not only been found to violate antitrust law, but which has
also failed to abide by previous agreements made between Microsoft
and the DOJ. And of equal importance and urgency, the remedies to
not look sufficient to curb Microsoft's tendencies toward anti-
competitive behavior now and in the future.
The provisions in J1 and J2 are becoming widely recognized as
providing too much opportunity for Microsoft to inhibit
interoperability with software considered part of the free software
movement. Several free software programs are considered significant
competitors to Microsoft's products. This is acknowledged even by
Microsoft. Microsoft should not be allowed to limit access to
information used in programs such as Apache or the Linux operating
system just because there is no commercial body responsible for
these software products. While the software itself may be not for
profit, there are many business that depend upon this software to
make their profits and Microsoft should not be allowed to shut them
out. I believe that the provisions in J1 and J2 will have a negative
effect on the ability for business to compete with Microsoft and
will help to expand Microsoft's current monopolies and provide
Microsoft with opportunities to establish new monopolies.
The term of the agreement as proposed is too short. While the
software industry itself is dynamic, the basic behavior of
monopolies is not and five to seven years is not long enough to
ensure that Microsoft's anti-competitive practices will be curbed.
The Justice department should not allow Microsoft to have such
control over the proposed Technical Committee. Microsoft should not
be allowed to appoint any members of the Technical Committee. I
cannot imagine why a company found to be in violation of the law
would be allowed to choose any member of it's oversight committee,
especially when there are only three members. By allowing Microsoft
to place someone of their choosing, they will have influence over
the selection of the third member which could mean that the
committee starts out with a two thirds pro-Microsoft majority. The
Justice Department should be responsible for the appointment of all
three members.
The level of secrecy surrounding the actions of the Technical
Committee will also have a negative effect on it's ability to stay
honest and fair. And the fact that they will be paid for and managed
by Microsoft should remove even the last scrap of objectivity from
the committee. If this proposal is to work, the Technical Committee
will need to be restructured so that it has greater independence and
more power.
Over all, I think that the proposed final order is not strong
enough and should be reevaluated. In the seven years that Microsoft
has been involved in proceedings with the Department of Justice,
they have not seen their business harmed. Instead they have grown
dramatically and further reinforced their monopoly position in many
areas. They have openly flaunted consent decrees and tied up the
investigation of their actions in a manner which only a company
which can accumulate billions of dollars a year from its
monopolistic position is able. The proposed remedies only serve to
reinforce the status quo under which Microsoft has been allowed to
grow unchecked--despite having been found to have violated the
law. Without stronger remedies, Microsoft will only continue to
stifle competition.
Sincerely
Charles Bennington
MTC-00033822
November 28, 2001
Robert H. Frudenberg
1109 Palm Drive
Burlingame, California
94010-3712
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. DOJ
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Sir,
It is most fortunate the Europeans are taking a more serious
stand against Microsoft than the U.S. I find that Microsoft has
quashed most competition by requiring dealers to install no other
operating system on new computers if they want to sell Windows.
Also, the proposed settlement of giving used computers to
schools is preposterous. That is not a penalty. A penalty for a
monopoly would be a breakup of major parts to allow competition to
begin again. Microsoft should be required to release source code to
developers so their products can work with windows OS and have no
blue screens.
MTC-00033823
28 November 2001
Renata Hesse, trial attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
Ms Hesse,
I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. As
an independent software developer who has been unemployed for most
of the last 14 months, I very much feel the economic recession.
Although the ``dot-com'' bust is undoubtedly a reason for
the current lack of jobs, it is the predatory monopolistic practices
of Microsoft Corporation which I feel is the main reason for the
situation so many of us independent software developers find
ourselves in.
The FUD, (fear, uncertainty and doubt) fostered by Microsoft's
actions with regards to the Java programming language has severely
limited the expansion of Internet software capabilities and the
attendant programmer employment. Also, the way Microsoft has
positioned its ``.NET'' strategy, as an alternative to the
current Internet experience, rather then positioning it as an
embrace and extend, has stagnated the development of Internet based
computer applications. As an individual who chooses to develop and
deploy Internet solutions on non-Microsoft software platforms, this
has locked me out of business opportunities.
The three pillars of justice: restraint, rehabilitation and
retribution are not adequately addressed by this proposal. While a
measure of rehabilitation needs time for accountability, the
settlement provides no relief from the monopolistic force of
Microsoft s Internet browser, why is it that this is permitted?
Microsoft must be forced to market their browser independent from
their operating system. Also there is no retribution available to
the thousands of companies and the over hundred thousand engineers
who have been affected by Microsoft's actions. The Microsoft
education proposal is a mockery of accounting and a piece of candy
for Microsoft's thrust into education. I spent five years on the
Riverview School District technology committee which is in King
County, Washington; and a third of that time was spent trying to
prevent the takeover of the computer resources by those who
mistakenly believe that a single computer supplier is beneficial to
the educational system.
I have encountered the lies, sabotage and intimidation of
Microsoft for fifteen years now and I'm angry about the situation. I
have enclosed a link to my resume, from which you can see I have
been involved in software development which includes important work
I did for the Apollo Space Program.
Baiss Eric Magnusson [email protected]
[[Page 30295]]
Cascade Web Design Software Design and Consulting,
32307 NE 193rd St. Specializing in WebObjects &
Java
Duvall, WA. 98019 425-788-2394
MTC-00033824
Post Office Box 3754
Oakland, CA 94609
6 December 2001
Ms. Renate Hesse,
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Dept. of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Renate Hesse:
RE: public comments on proposed settlement of U.S. Government
vs. Microsoft Corporation in the matter of alleged monopolistic
business practices.
The proposed settlement of the lawsuit of U.S. government vs.
Microsoft Corporation is totally inadequate to rein in the past,
continuing and growing abuses by Microsoft Corporation in the
production, distribution and sale of their Windows and other
software products.
After almost twenty years of bullying competitors with illegal
monopolistic tactics, after being convicted in Federal court of
serious and repeated violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, after
destroying the market shares of Dr. DOS, Lotus123, WordPerfect and
Netscape Internet browser softwares with illegal bundling,
exclusionary contracts and other heavy-handed tactics, the mighty
Microsoft Corporation has now condescended to allow PC manufacturers
to ``delete the Internet Explorer icon'' from the starting
Windows screen. Wow. The mind boggles.
Is the mighty Microsoft Corporation actually making a real
concession to the concept of free market competition? Sorry. Its
just another cheap MS trick to be allowed to continue their illegal
and immoral monopolizing and bullying ways. Microsoft is trying to
leverage its Windows PC operating system monopoly into dominating
the Internet with its Explorer Browser, its home web page,
microsoft.com and its latest offerings of its new Windows XP
operating system.
Microsoft Corporation should not be allowed to expand into any
new areas of technology, be it on the Internet or elsewhere. To
date, Microsoft Corporation has shown very little if any
understanding of fair play, fair competition or moral behavior. They
are obviously in need of severe discipline.
The U.S. government should levy a fine of twenty billion dollars
as just punishment for past monopolistic and illegal business
practices over the last two decades. The consumers of the U.S. have
been negatively affected by the bullying behavior of Microsoft
Corporation.
Yours truly,
James K. Sayre
MTC-00033825
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO
WILLIE LEWIS
BROWN, JR.
January 7, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments of the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Hesse:
Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to
consumers and businesses, and it provides opportunities for other
software companies as well to develop programs for the Windows
platform. The provisions of the settlement, worked out with one of
the nation's top mediators, will be good for consumers, businesses,
the tech sector and the economy as a whole. I fully support the
Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys General for their
efforts to finally put an end to this case and agree to a settlement
that is in our nation's best interest.
Sincerely,
WLB/cc
1 DR. CARLTON B.GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 200, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA
94102-4681
(415) 554-6143
RECYCLED PAPER
MTC-00033826
Chun-Wai Chan
5555 S. Everett Ave., Suite E3
Chicago, IL 60637
773-324-8190
Fax: 773-324-8190
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Dept. of Justice and States Settlement with Microsoft
Ms. Hesse,
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment with the
Dept. of Justice's proposed settlement with Microsoft. I would like
to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act and have my views entered
in the following Federal records:
1. I ask that my following comments be accepted during the 60
day period after the proposed Final Judgment is published in the
Federal Register.
2. I asked that my comments along with responses to them be
published in the Federal Register.
3. I ask that my comments and the responses to them be filed
with the court examining this settlement.
I believe the concessions made by Microsoft in the proposed
settlement are inadequate in restraining their predatory and
monopolistic practices in the computer industry. In particular
Microsoft has too great a lattitude deciding what consitutes its
middleware and what constitutes its core operating system.
The alternative settlement submitted for review by the nine
states opposed to the current Dept. of Justice settlement closes
many loopholes which can and will be exploited by Microsoft. I
therefore urge the Department of Justice to adopt the new settlement
proposed by the States Attorneys of CA, MA, CT, UT and the other 5
states opposed to the original proposed settlement.
Sincerely,
Chun-Wai Chan
Naturalized Citizen of the United States of America
Registered Independent Voter in the 4th Ward of the City of
Chicago
MTC-00033829
From: Rufus Polson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 12:37 pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
Dear Officers of Justice,
I should note before beginning that I am Canadian, and as such
lack standing in a United States proceeding. But it has been
suggested to me that it would, nonetheless, not be improper to
submit a respectfully phrased opinion, and I have serious concerns
about this matter.
My first worry about the proposed settlement is that it cannot
be enforced. The only penalty for noncompliance with the settlement,
as I understand it, is that the settlement may be extended for two
years. But how much effect can this have? Surely a company failing
to comply with a settlement would have little trouble continuing for
two more years to fail to comply. The history of Microsoft's
behaviour suggests that failing to comply with a settlement is
within the scope of their normal actions; the likelihood of this
happening must be taken into account in any settlement, with
noncompliance penalties on a scale sufficient to create strong
disincentive even to such a massive entity.
My second is the lack of any penalty. In a country in which the
criminal law strongly endorses retribution and deterrence as
principles of justice, and in which corporations are legal entities
with much of the rights and standing of persons, it seems
appropriate to keep in mind the principles that are routinely
applied to persons when dealing with corporate lawbreaking. This is
the more true for corporations such as Microsoft in which the
direction is so clearly set by a very few individuals, whose
fortunes and identities are wrapped up closely in the corporation.
In short, Microsoft as a corporation is guilty of a serious
crime--this has been established. Microsoft as a corporation
should be seen to be penalized, so that other corporations and their
administrations realize that illegal monopolist tactics will not
cause their companies to prosper.
My third is the weakness of much of the language, such that many
things which the settlement appears on the surface to prohibit are
in fact not prohibited in any serious way, whereas it seems that
others still can be twisted in such a manner as to actually
legitimize practises that would not normally be considered
acceptable. Many other submissions, as I understand it, have gone
into detail on these issues. I will not spend words describing them
yet again.
Another problem is the inspectors. Their powers are unclear, and
should be strongly
[[Page 30296]]
specified. The selection process seems inappropriate--why
should Microsoft have a voice in selecting their watchdog? It is
like letting a drug dealer vote on his parole officer. In addition,
it seems as if they are to be paid by Microsoft--this is
another damper on independence. It seems more reasonable that
Microsoft should disburse a sum immediately, sufficient for their
payment for the entire duration of the settlement, and the
Department of Justice should pay them out of that sum.
Finally, the settlement seems of marginal impact even in its
intent. Even if one were to ensure that it was complied with, clean
up ambiguities in language so that the compliance reflects what some
of the broader statements indicate to be the intent, and empower
inspection sufficiently well to verify compliance, the results seem
unlikely to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour to any great
extent. Rather, it seems likely that Microsoft will be forced to
curtail a few fringe practises, leaving the general pattern
untouched and perhaps pushing them to intensify new anti-competitive
practises in areas such as the internet and encryption, where they
might take advantage of such laws as the DMCA to use proprietary
encryption schemes and claim any attempt to interoperate with their
encrypted files to be illegal.
In short, the proposed settlement is flabby and overspecific
even in its intent--no tiger capable of reining such a massive
organization, but a tabby cat. Its actual wording makes it a paper
tabby. Let us not forget that this is a corporation with such
contempt for the administration of justice that they presented
falsified evidence to the trial court (their so-called demonstration
of Windows 98 running slower without Internet Explorer, which was a
mockup fabricated for the sole purpose of deceiving the
court--an action which would have surely left any ordinary
defendant facing additional charges for perjury and/or contempt of
court); how likely is it that they will comply with any judicial
decision one micron farther than they are absolutely compelled to?
How likely is it, in fact, that any settlement without a major
structural component will impact Microsoft's practises in any
significant way? In the absence of structural remedies, it is at
least essential that any settlement present a comprehensive
catalogue of practises which are absolutely barred, presented in
ironclad language, with massive, immediate penalties for deviation.
And if this case is to deter others from similar practises and, in
general, pass the message that antitrust law remains alive in the
United States, it should involve a substantial penalty for past
anticompetitive actions.
Respectfully yours,
Rufus Polson
MTC-00033830
From: Walter Schulz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:48 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
There are many factors which render the proposed final judgement
both ineffective and incomplete. One argument which bears the burden
of many industry concerns is that of Dan Kegel's open letter to the
DOJ (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). This references his
essay on the topic which can be found at(http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html). These documents are well written and contain
much information overlooked by the drafters of the PFJ. I have asked
that my name be added to the open letter. Even these points do not
complete the argument against Microsoft's monopolistic activities,
It is evident that the drafters of the judgement have not been
educated to a sufficient understanding of the enormous technical
details which comprise the history of Microsoft's monopoly. These
are, of course, too many to be discussed in a brief email. Please
however consider the following:
* Microsoft's policy of trademarking common industry terms (such
as ``windows'', ``office'', quo;access'',
etc.) To the end of excluding competitors'' use of standard
terms in the names of their products. ``Windows'' for
example is a name in use by the ``X Windows'' system for
the Unix well before ``Microsoft Windows'' came to market.
* Microsoft's habit/policy of modifying standard programming
languages (to optimize them for the Microsoft Windows platform) and
passing them off as the original standards. This is demonstrated in
the development of ``Microsoft Visual C++'(a
``version'' of the C++ programming language for
``Microsoft Windows') and J++(a ``version'' of Sun
Microsystems'' Java programming language. Since the suit with
Sun, Microsoft has begun calling their version ``Active X')
Sadly, programmers who are educated using Microsoft's non-standard
language versions may have difficulty writing for any platform but
``Microsoft Windows'' since these versions do not use
standard development libraries. Thus the pool of development talent
for competing operating systems is effectively decreased by flooding
the market with these altered languages.
Thank you for your time. I wish you all the luck you will
certainly need in effectively considering judgements in this case.
Sincerely,
Walter A. Shultz
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Electronics Technician
[email protected]
MTC-00033831
From: Dagny Haug
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:16 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is *not* a good idea.
Dagny Haug
Associate Program Director
Edina Technical Education Center
University of Minnesota
http://www.cce.umn.edu/infotech/
Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and
only you can determine how it is spent. Be careful lest other people
spend it for you.
Carl Sandburg
MTC-00033832
From: Mike Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:29 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hello Judge,
I'm am writing this message to convey my opinion on the
Microsoft settlement.
I feel that Microsoft is guilty of the charges brought by the
government. I am greatly disappointed at the settlement. I read it
the day it was released and quite frankly, I was appalled. And then
to read a few weeks later, Microsoft's proposed settlement in civil
suits where Microsoft would give computers and software to the
education market told me that Microsoft has not learned. The
proposed settlement would have devastated Apple Computer's lead in
the education market!
I used to work for Digital Equipment Corporation. I ``heard
stories'', many first hand, of the practices Microsoft used to
great effect against DEC. Stories of ``acquired''
technologies, of Mr. Gates asking that competing technologies be
cancelled, of Microsoft not pushing DEC's Alpha chip. Yes, they are
``stories'' Many were settled in out of court settlements
so that we'll never know the final truth, but they are indicative of
business practices practiced by a monopoly
To fairly settle this court action, I propose the following:
(Not limited to these, just some things I believe should be
addressed)
Open standards of document formats. Microsoft Office is the
standard. Allow other companies to compete on form and function and
innovation.
A business practices oversight committee that has real power to
keep Microsoft in check Microsoft should have no say in who would be
on this committee
Limit Microsoft's expansion into media They have MSN, MSNBC,
etc.. I don't want to watch ``All Microsoft, All the
time''. People who don't know better will see Microsoft on TV
and on their computer and be ``locked in''. How does
someone compete fairly when everything says
``Microsoft''?? If anything needs to be split from the
main company, it's the media portion. It is truly scary.
Mandate government use of alternatives to Microsoft products.
There's no good reason for the government to be feeding a monopoly.
There are excellent operating systems out there. (Linux, Open VMS,
HP UX, etc..)
Mandate to Microsoft that the government will only use open
standard formats for things like documents and programming, and
networking interfaces Microsoft must stop practicing ``embrace
and extend'' where they take an open standard, add their
extensions, and lock out others. In conclusion, I would hope that
the court will ensure that Microsoft does not walk away from this
with an slap on the wrist and a virtual ``ok'' to continue
its predatory practices
I thank you for your time and your patience in reading this
message.
mike
[email protected]
http://www.yelof.com
MTC-00033833
From: Michael James Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:56 am
Subject: Simple to implement remedys.
Dear Sirs,
[[Page 30297]]
Microsoft clearly has maintained a monopoly via unlawful means.
They do not deserve the public's trust, as they do not have our best
interest in mind.
Most behavioral or structural remedies are too hard to
effectively enforce on an adaptable company such as Microsoft. So
instead affect a policy change for the Federal Government through
careful restrictions on Microsoft.
Switch the entire federal government over from MS office and
mail products to other companies products like Sun Microsystem's
StarOffice products. Use an open file format, such as Rich Text,
Html, or Latex as the standard for documents. Word documents can be
easily changed over to these types through its SaveAs command, and
this process can be automated through simple programs most
programmers could write in a couple hours.
This sounds like an expensive switch over. Have Microsoft pay
for the manpower to switch over all agencies. Make them split the
cost of any new licenses 50%/50%.
To make this switch within the power of the court, you would
have to phrase the judgement in a way similar to:
All licenses granted to the federal government of Microsoft
Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are hereby revoked.
(The contracts cancelled).
A new 5 year license is given in lieu of the old license of each
copy of that software.
Microsoft may not issue new licenses to the government for any
Non-Operating System product. Microsoft may not bundle any office
productivity software into its Operating Systems. This is in effect
for the next 10 years.
Microsoft will pay all labor costs associated with switching to
new office products, as well as 50% of the cost of all replacement
software.
Any state or municipal governments may also have these same
terms if they request it.
This seems to be an easy to enforce and equitable judgement that
can be levied against Microsoft as a punishment, and does not cost
any party but Microsoft an undue expense, while still being fair to
Microsoft.
The only party remaining to be dealt with is the OEM's who have
been forced into licensing contracts with Microsoft. To remedy that
situation, allow any of them to cancel their contracts with
Microsoft at any time in the next 5 years, and enforce a single
PUBLISHED price for all OEM software purchases of Microsoft
software. Allow compulsory licencing to at that price to any OEM
that wants it.
Thank you for your time.
Yours truly,
Michael Langford
MTC-00033834
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:41 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. Others, more
eloquent than I, will detail the reasons why this proposal will not
restore competition in the marketplace or provide sufficient cause
for Microsoft to change their monopolistic behavior. As a software
professional with over twenty years experience and whose
undergraduate course of study was in computer science, I have
watched as Microsoft has continually impeded innovative
developments. Microsoft follows a fairly consistent plan:
(1) Ignore the innovation (e.g., web browser, disk compression,
java, etc.) until it can no longer be ignored. Then,
(2) Respond to the innovation by saying that it is without
merit. When this is insufficient to keep the innovation from the
market,
(3) Either buy the developer of the innovation or
``partner'' with them. ``Partnering allows
Microsoft the time to develop the software in-house. Once the in-
house version is ready, Microsoft will ruthlessly
``bundle'' it into their offering at ``no additional
cost'' thereby destroying the market for the original
developer. Finally,
4) Claim the innovation was due to Microsoft in the first place.
For the good of the consumer, market, industry, and country this
anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior must stop. Based on the
the past behavior of Microsoft, with respect to previous Department
of Justice actions, there is nothing which suggests that Microsoft
will follow the spirit, or even the letter, of the current proposed
settlement. They have consistently flaunted the law and have treated
any cost or enforcement action as a normal ``cost of doing
business.'' Without any meaningful competition they can do this
with impunity.
I would encourage the Department to re-evaluate this far too
lenient settlement and devise a solution which, even in the face of
determined Microsoft attempts at circumvention, will help restore
competition and innovation to the marketplace.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Johnson -bs scj at marcsys
period com
13906 Flint Rock Road -bs
Rockville, Maryland 20853-2649 U.S.A.
-bs
MTC-00033835
From: Tal Eidelberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:58 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The final settlement proposal by the United States, suggests
sanctions that will be imposed on the Microsoft Corporation. These
sanctions are supposed to imply that the US government and
department of law disapprove of Microsof's monopoly over the PC
operating system market, and Microsoft's use of this monopoly to
dominate other markets, such as the web browser market. My opinion
is that it is not right for the government to intervene with the
natural selection of the software industries, and that such an
intervention ultimately does not help the markets, the customers.
Looking back to the 1990s, it is obvious that the PC market has
undergone a revolution. The main change was that PCs became user-
friendly, and that almost any average non-programmer could use them.
Because of this new user-friendly style, the PCs became very
popular, their prices dropped, and the new now-affordable computers
were summoned to help in many places where they were desperately
needed. The upbringing of this revolution, by all means, should be
accredited to one organization, the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft
Corporation through many years of dedicated, complex software
development, had built an operating system that is unbelievably
simple to operate and is intuitive enough for a seven-year-old child
to handle. The qualities of the windows operating system series is
the sole reason that Microsoft originally became successful, and
therefore Microsoft is rightfully dominating the PC operating system
market, which Microsoft fostered. The inclusion of Microsoft's
Internet Explorer for free with the windows 98 operating system is a
one hundred percent legitimate market strategy. I believe that a
company that develops a widespread product, such as Microsoft's
Windows operating system, it should hold the right to further add
and develop that product as it sees suitable for the company's
benefit. Software markets are fast moving, and companies rise and
fall fairly quickly. This is for no other reason but the fast moving
pace of technological advances of our century. There is no guarantee
for any one company that its product will be required in the near
future. Microsoft has done a great job in surviving the cut-throat
competition of the software technology market, and along the way
defined and introduced many standards such as COM software objects,
which left the entire software developer world swayed with
astonishment. The intervention on the behalf of the government by no
means helps the customers. Customers who wish to use non-Microsoft
operating systems are free to choose form an array of products such
as Unix, Linux and OS2 to name a few. By forcing Microsoft to allow
competitors to create new operating systems, the government is
actually lowering the standards of competition that were defined by
the natural market. The end result is that the customers get lower
standard software, and eventually the PC software market will gain a
low quality reputation that will decrease the market's scope.
The employment of unlawful techniques to maintain monopoly, or
to achieve goals should be forbidden and fought. In the case of
Microsoft's offer to Netscape where it was suggested that Netscape
does not compete in the operating system market, and in return
Microsoft does not compete in the web browser market, it is clear
that the intention of Microsoft was to unlawfully maintain a
Monopoly. A situation such as this obviously hurts customers and the
market, and therefore should be dealt with and punishment should be
sought in a rightful magnitude. This, however, should not imply that
all of Microsoft's actions are unlawful and should be constrained.
As it seems Microsoft controls the operating system market today.
There is, however, no guarantee that the future will be as fortunate
for Microsoft as the past had been. In today's free competition
markets, Netscape can use the same techniques used by Microsoft and
distribute a free version of Unix for example with their web browser
Navigator product. Free competition is the basis for a great
economy, and therefore the government
[[Page 30298]]
should not intervene, unless companies act unlawfully.
Tal Eidelberg
MTC-00033836
From: Casey Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/28/02 2:28 am
To the Honorable Department of Justice--
It is as a student, a technician, and an end-user that I wish to
add my comments as per the Tunney Act concerning the settlement
proposed by the corporation in question, Microsoft.
Before I begin individually laying out my reasons for my views,
I must first denounce the proposed settlement as a mockery of
justice, the institution of the courts, the welfare of the consumer,
and the sensibility of the media and the general public.
We speak of punishment of criminals yet we are prepared to enact
a double standards of rewards for crimes of business.
The practice of the Microsoft Corporation has been established
as a violation of antitrust laws. From the packaging of the Internet
Explorer web browser with its operating system, fully integrate it
with the operating system of Windows to its current methods of
furthering the hold on the software industry with Microsoft Office,
Windows Media Player, built-in firewall for XP, .NET system, and the
coupling of Microsoft Network with Windows XP, or its suit over the
Windows names. This case began in 1995 and now in 2002 we are
willing to settle with a turn of our backs.
I could list piece-by-piece what I view as theft by this Giant.
I could easily attempt to make my case that Microsoft has not
produced, in general, a product solely of its own without building
it or modeling it from a product of another company. Whether it is
the windowing system concept (Macintosh), DOS (Caldera),Start Menu
(Apple), Terminal Services (Symantec's pcAnywhere / AT&T Virtual
Network Computing), firewall and multiple logins (unix, Linux
iptables/ipchains). I could sit and justify the vantage that the
richest man in the United States built his fortune upon the backs of
stolen ideas. A criminal never brought to trial.
As a student, I am dishearten to see the movements in the
university systems to be Microsoft-centric. Database classes are
taught with Access, programs are to be written with Visual Basic/
C++/J++, web design is taught via Frontpage, and the operating
system of choice for labs is Microsoft Windows. At what cost? If you
are to look at the per-seat licensing of Microsoft we are spending
fortunes on software at the cost of a broad education. We learn by
the bloated non-standards and hope that we can push in the real
world. We fail to learn systems outside the deal.
As a technician for an internet service provider, I am force to
witness first hand the limiting force of a monopoly. When a call
comes in the first generalized question that comes to the client is,
``What version of Windows are you running?'', followed by
``What version of Internet Explorer are you running?''.
Common issues are virii, tcp/ip stack failures, win modem
initialization strings, corrupt executables of Windows components.
Because Internet Explorer is intergrated with the Windows operating
system, the user interface is slower, if Internet Explorer blows up
you lose the stability of your system, and users are unable to
regress to a previous version or remove the faulty component.
Security is negligible, the mail system is a petri dish for virii,
and the networking leaves much to be desired. On a day-to-day basis,
I have to deal with problems of Windows ``forgetting''
settings and devices or perpetuating unneeded data in the way of
networking addresses. Hardware compatibility is greatly reduced as
it as modems are software based (``winmodems''). Internet
access setup is hindered by the persistence of MSN (The Microsoft
Network) in terms of web browsing, messaging, dial-up networking,
and communications compatibility.
As an end-user, I cannot help but to feel that I have been
violated. I used in-house networking to share information between my
laptop, my sister's computer, and my home system. My laptop is an
Apple Powerbook running Mac OS X, my desktop is Redhat Linux 7.2,
and my sister's machine is Windows 2000 Professional. I have had to
run numerous security updates on Windows 2000 and its predecessor
Windows 98. XP, which I had test ran has holes in security large
enough to sail the US Navy through. Non-Microsoft programs are
``crash-proned'' by the operating system. I cannot help to
feel that as a consumer I the Warranty of Mercantibility failed to
apply to Microsoft products. I deal with file sharing
compatibilities with SMB RPC calls. I feal cheated. The cost is
high-way robbery.
In an industry where compatibility is a necessity, Microsoft
continues to violate standards in security, networking, programming.
Its movement to control the wealth of the industry has damaged the
industry and the economy of the United States of America. We cannot
pretend that keeping the ingrediants in one pantry allows every one
to taste the pie. Unemployment, job cuts, and damages are left in
the wake of postponed action.
The proposed settlement is not a punitive settlement, but an
extension in guise that fails to be in the best interests of
justice, consumers, and the general populace. The
``donation'' of monopoly software to an area where the
monopoly is not in existence is the furtherment of the monopoly. It
is the allowing of Park Place and Boardwalk with hotels to reap
Community Chest.
On the other hand, I agree with the proposed settlement of
Redhat. Let Microsoft purchase The equipment, let another software
vendor provide the software. Software that is not terms limited,
useragreement stipulated, bug-ridden, security questionable, and
compatibility hell. I would further like to propose the removable of
Internet Explorer and Media Player from current and future versions
of the Windows OS along with the shutdown of the Microsoft Network.
Do not allow one trust for another another. Anything short of this
would be unfair when you look at the settlement that prevent
AT&T from developing Unix and establishing its lead role in the
computer industry.
I apologize that my statements here are more brief than I had
intended and may not be as clear and concise as I feel that is
needed to set a better light on this blite.
However, in closing I wish to ask that the Department of Justice
act as a doctor and treat this case as curable form of the AIDS
retrovirus. Medicare it. Prevent it from injecting and taking over
new cells. Prevent it from disabling the guards against it. I also
wish to ask the the Deparment of Justice to act as a strong Prime
Minister. Do not do an appease. Europe settled to give Hitler one
victory, but found that one eventually equated to many. Politics and
history often meet with business to form one. Apply it.
Sincerely,
Casey W. Keller
1255 Mountain Glen Circle
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
United States of America
h: 828.438.8543
828.438.1550
c: 828.443.0515
e: [email protected]
MTC-00033837
BFI Waste Services of Charlotte
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial 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 hve 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 innovatice 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 at cheaper prices to
undercut our economic growth.
The proposed settlement agreement provide protections to all
involved in this
[[Page 30299]]
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 Morehead Road . Concord, NC 28027 . (704) 393-6900 .
Fax (704) 782-2177
MTC-00033838
Products Inc.
Creek Road, FF-202
Charlotte, North Carolina 23205
Phone 704-373-9889
Toll Free 888-332-2888
January 22, 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 in support of the proposed settlement 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 greater innovation. All new
Microsoft operating systems, including Windows XP, would have to
include a mechanism that readily allows end users to remove or re-
enable Microsoft's middleware products, such as the Internet web
browser.
We need to be encouraging the technology sector, which is
critical to our economic recovery. This agreement is good for the
technology industry, the economy and consumers.
Sincerely,
Evan J. Boxer
President
EJB/dgb
MTC-00033839
Jan 07 02 02:21p
FROM:
Gary Pearce
FAX NO. :
Grace Chirico
6689 English Ivy Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse:
I write in support of the settlement for the U.S. v. Microsoft
case. The settlement will end damaging litigation that has harmed
consumers and dampened innovation among technology companies. It is
time to end the litigation and to encourage new economic
opportunities for technology companies as well as provide
investments in education, having worked as educator for more than 30
years, I know how important it is to encourage creativity and new
ideas. Allowing technology companies the opportunity to innovate and
integrate products without goverment interference will benefit all
of us. This. is a time when we need to encourage innovation and get
our economy moving forward. Settlement of this case would be an
important step in that direction. As a consumer, I need to be able
to get affordable software that I can rely on. Microsoft products
are easy to use and allow integration of several software programs
for consumers who do not have a lot of experience with computer
programs.
Grace Chirco
MTC-00033840
Jan 07 02 02:21p Gary Pearce
9197878031
P.3
Summers Consulting Services
Brenda J. Summers, Ed.D.
December 13, 2001
6561 Heorthsiona Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone; 919-847-3184
Fax: 919-841-4220
E-mall: [email protected]
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street. NWI Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Attorney Hesse;
I support for the settlement that has been reached with
Microsoft Corp. in the nationwide product pricing class. actions.
Consumers have benefited from Microsoft's innovation, which has
resulted in better products and lower prices.
The dramatic commitment that Microsoft has announced to the
public schools will go a long way toward addressing this need.
Further, it helps put an end to costly and damaging litigation which
already has gone on too long and caused too much harm to an economy
that is in recession. The settlement is in everyone's best
interests. The technology industry, consumers and the economy will
all benefit to an end to this litigation.
I know I speak for many Americans who believe that the perfect
end to this long chapter of litigation would be a settlement that
invests in educating our children and building our economy.
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Summers, Ed. D.
MTC-00033841
Sent By: Town of Llttleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
Kennard A. Spencer
P.O. Box 381
Littleton MA 01460
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
6O1 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse,
As a retiree who depends much upon his investments for income, I
want to express my concern regarding the ongoing antitrust case
against Microsoft. I do not deny the Justice Department their right
to pursue and prosecute violations, but I would hope that they would
be a little more cognizant of the effects of their actions.
Antitrust actions are not isolated affairs, and an attempt to punish
Microsoft for whatever real or perceived offenses has impact on many
people.
Ever since the Justice Department. began its action against
Microsoft, the high tech sector stocks, not only Microsoft but
others, have plummeted effecting investors nationally, including
institutional investors such as pension funds. This has caused an
enormous loss of wealth across the country. I know from
conversations with many others that I am not alone in seeing the
obvious connection between the antitrust case and the economic
slowdown. In such a questionable case of antitrust violation, with
no apparent victims, shouldn't the government consider the dire
consequences of its actions?
It is my understanding that the Justice Department has presented
the Judge in the case with a settlement agreement they have
negotiated with Microsoft. For all the reasons cited above, I
strongly urge you to do whatever you can to see that it happens.
With sincere respect,
Kennard A. Spencer
MTC-00033842
Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2716;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
David C. McCarthy
133 Ashburnham Street
Fitchburg MA 01420
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse:
Count me as a consumer and citizen who wants to see the
government's case against Microsoft Corporation ended. Thirty
million dollars later, and we come to discover that this was all
really about some zealous attorneys trying to get the government to
pick sides in the high-tech marketplace. One doesn't need to be an
expert at antitrust law to know that Microsoft has not had any
monopolistic stranglehold on the information industry; just walk
into any Office Depot, or open any newspaper and see the variety,
the competition and the falling prices. There is no cause for
government action here.
And then comes the likes of proComp, AOL Time `Warner, Sun
and Oracle, all looking to have the federal government carve out
special rules and conditions to favor them. This is not what the
free-market system is all about. It's time to end the feeding
frenzy, and end the court case. I see that the Justice Department is
finally looking to settle the case, and that Microsoft has agreed,
Please, let's just do it. I urge the judge to accept this
settlement, and we can all get out of this sooner rather than later.
[[Page 30300]]
Sincerely,
David C. McCarthy
MTC-00033843
Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
Page 4/4
ASA
ALLIANCES
INCORPORATED
Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
610 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
January 9,2002
Dear Attorney Hesse,
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion during
the public comment period for the Microsoft antitrust settlement
proposal. I wholeheartedly support the decision to settle rather
than litigate, and I applaud the Justice Department for crafting a
strong resolution which allows Microsoft to remain free to be
innovative, while protecting the consumer. It is my hope that Judge
Kollar Kotelly will see this as being in the best interests of the
country.
The past few months should give us all cause to stop and
reflect. We need to be unified as Americans, not only to show
strength internationally but also to meet the challenges of
reinvigorating the economy. If we can find a way to settle this
case, then perhaps both Microsoft and the other companies opposing
it can get back to developing technology and expanding business;
This settlement proposal seems to be the best chance we have of
turning this into a positive for the country.
Thank you for considering my thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Lappin
MTC-00033844
Renata Hesse, Esquire
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
Dear Ms. Hesse:
For more than three years and at a cost of many million of
taxpayers' dollars, the United Starts Justice Department has pursued
an antitrust suit against Microsoft Corporation. As an interested
taxpayer who has no direct financial interest in this proceeding, I
strongly believe that the case has had no beneficial impact and that
the settlement should be approved by the federal court.
I remember not too many years ago, as a novice computer-user,
using Prodigy for my Internet service. Prodigy then was rapidly
supplanted by competitors, just as Microsoft supplemented Apple. The
lawsuit against Microsoft was largely initiated by a Microsoft
competitor. Netscape, which is now part of AOL Time Warner, an
Internet behemoth in and of itself.
The point is that the marketplace, especially the Internet
marketplace, has its own way of rewarding and penalizing companies'
behavior--rapidly and sometimes brutally. The federal
government, especially the federal courts, cannot respond rapidly
and intelligently enough, even if it can respond brutally.
As a former judge and Supreme Court Justice, I know the
limitations of the courts, and I believe this court has found its
limits in this case. It believe this view is reflected in the
decision by the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina to
accept the settlement. I hope that the courts will now restore good
sense to the government's oversight of the information-
technology industry.
Sincerely,
Phil Carlton
MTC-00033845
Betty Combs Owen
529 Ellynn Drive
Cary, NC 27511
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 express my support for the settlement under
consideration in the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case
against Microsoft. For the past sixteen years, I have served as
Executive Director of the Emerging Issues Forum at North Carolina
State University. Many of our annual forums have focused on the
remarkable advances in information technology that our nation has
enjoyed--and the incredible economic growth and opportunities
that have resulted. Without Microsoft's leadership and innovation,
these advances might not have happened. Whatever wrongs Microsoft
may have done in its efforts to compete in this rapidly changing and
highly challenging field, I do not believe our nation's best
interests are served by prolonging this litigation. I am pleased
that the State of North Carolina has accepted the settlement and is
no longer a party to the action. I hope that the federal courts will
take the same course.
The settlement agreement provides an enforcement mechanism that
will have the resources. access and authority needed to respond
quickly if there are any future complaints about Microsoft's
business activities. This mechanism, along with the restrictions
imposed on Microsoft by the settlement appears to be a fair and
reasonable way to resolve this matter. I hope that the federal court
will do so quickly. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
Sincerely,
Betty Owen
MTC-00033846
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am a senior programmer analyst for a National Bank. AS such, I
have witnessed first hand the negative impact this needless
litigation has had on the American IT industry. I am in favor of
Microsoft's willingness to make the concessions they have made in
the spirit of resolving the lawsuit. However, I believe the terms of
agreement go too far. For instance, Microsoft agreed to share with
its competitors' proprietary information it has worked hard to
develop. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to the creation of a
technical oversight committee, which will monitor its business
practices. This concession goes above and beyond what should be
expected of Microsoft. The agreement should be approved in its
present form and no further federal action should be taken.
I appreciate your efforts to ensure a prompt resolution of this
suit in the best interests of the American IT industry and the
American public
An American IT worker,
cc: Representative Bob Stump
MTC-00033847
Hew Hampshire Homeowner/Main Street Alliance
30 Norway Hill
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
888-666-4782
VIA FAX (202) 616 9937
January 11, 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 on behalf of NH Homeowners/Main Street Alliance to
encourage you to approve the proposed settlement between the United
States Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation.
Our organization is a consortium of business organizations in
New Hampshire dedicated to helping the economy of our state while
also working with local, state and the federal government on issues
that affect our membership. New Hampshire is very much a high tech
state ranking second per capita in the number of reside: its working
in high tech. The Microsoft case is one, which we have followed
closely.
A competitive marketplace producing better products, more
choices, and lower prices is in consumers'' best interest. It
is imperative that competition be encouraged, in order to provide
the platform for high quality, innovative products which will
inevitably benefit consumers as well as the high tech marketplace.
The continuance of this case has only hurt the economy and the many
small, medium and even large businesses that have seen their
fortunes adversely effected in the last year. It is time to put this
case behind us and get the entire high tech industry focused on
innovation again and not litigation. It is evident that the
conclusion of this case is in the best interest of consumers, the
economy and entire high tech industry.
Thank you for your attention.
Lauren Carney
MTC-00033849
Ain't America Great!
1341 College Point
[[Page 30301]]
Winter Park, Florida 32789
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
I am aware that a settlement has been reached in the Justice
Department's three-year case against Microsoft. I support the
settlement, even though I don't believe that the government, MY
GOVERNMENT, should have even recognized the complaints of their
competitors in the first place. I think it is in the government's,
and our best interests to accept the settlement and move on to more
important matters.
If it wasn't for Microsoft, I would not be as computer literate
as I am today, and I'm just and ordinary citizen who has had no
training, no scholling in use of a computer. I know that there are
plenty of middle aged and older Americans who have had to learn to
use this technology on their own. Microsoft products made it easy,
non-threatening and affordable. Thier products caused the huge
number of purchases of personal computers and associated items that
drove our country's economic success and increased productivity in
the ``90's. I think it is sad that they are being penalized for
America's success.
The terms of the settlement are reasonable, despite my objection
that this case should not have been brought in the first place.
Microsoft if making changes to prevent any future antitrust
practices. It has agreed to establish a three-person technical
committee which will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the
settlement. Microsoft will use a uniform price list when licensing
Windows out to the largest 20 computer makers in the United States.
They have agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors
various interfaces that are internal to Window's operating system
products
I ask that the government stop spending my resources to penalize
Microsoft's success and agree to the settlement terms.
Randy Braden
cc: Representative Ric Keller
MTC-00033850
Jan 24 02 02:23p
Gary Pearce
9197878031
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
Neil J. Rudolph
Vice President
PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INC
Dear Ms. Hesse:
I sincerely hope that the federal courts finally will put an end
to the government's pursuit of Microsoft. The national economy has
been hurt enough, the technology sector has been hurt enough, the
nation's most important software company has been hurt enough, and
no damage to the consumer and end user has ever been proven.
The stock market meltdown and the ongoing layoffs through the
technology sector demonstrate that this proceeding should be
stopped. The settlement that has been reached appropriately punishes
Microsoft and protects against any future anticompetitive behavior.
It is time to let the marketplace, not the courtroom, determine the
future of this industry.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Rudolph
MTC-00033851
2860 Hillcrest Lane
Northbrook, IL 60062
December 7, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This letter is to express my support for the recent agreement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This
proposed agreement has ended a long three-year court battle brought
about by the Department of Justice against Microsoft. I have long
felt that this antritrust suit was unfair. I believe if a person has
the guts and intelligence to pursue his or her particular dream,
they should not be punished if they achieve it. Thank you for
working to settle this.
But beyond my personal feelings, it is best for the country to
move on. As you know, Microsoft agreed to a number of provisions
demanded from the Justice Department, and an oversight committee was
formed which will monitor Microsoft. No more is needed. Therefore,
the Department of Justice should not pursue this matter any further.
We are in a time of great stress in this country. We need to
allocate our time and money to resolve the obvious problems at hand,
not keeping arbitrating a settlement that has already been
negotiated.
Sincerely,
Robert Brandt
MTC-00033852
3280 Sportsman Club Road
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
November 30, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
I would like to take some time to express my opinion about the
settlement that was reached between the Department of Justice and
Microsoft. The settlement brought an end to the three- year
antitrust dispute, and was fair and just. I also hope that there
will be no more legal action against the Microsoft Corporation at
the Federal level.
I simply do not understand why American taxpayer dollars have
been misused in the pursuit of litigation against Microsoft. Now
more than ever, America needs to spend its money more carefully. The
economy is still suffering from the beginning of this whole dispute,
and the stock market is in disarray. Microsoft has done much for
this country and has completely changed the face of the computing
and technology industries. They need to be allowed to continue
bringing new and useful products to the marketplace.
I appreciate your time and consideration on this issue. I am
happy with the settlement, and urge you not to further trouble
Microsoft. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Donald Burlison
MTC-00033853
From Leon H. CarringtonJanuary 28, 2002
22022 Gloucester Court 3-B
Lexington Park, Md. 20653
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington DC 205030
My name is Leon H. Carrington, I am a citizen of the United
States and I am herewith submitting my comments regarding the
Proposed Final Judgement in Civil Action No. 98-1232, United
States of America v. Microsoft Corporation.
The government has breached its duty to the public by offering
the Revised Proposed Final Judgement (Final Judgement) as a Final
Judgement and settlement in the case United States v. Microsoft
Corporation. The remedy proposed is not effective for correcting or
eliminating the violations alleged in the Complaint (Civil Action
No. 98-1232 (CKK)). The remedy proposed would create more harm
to the public than the damage alleged due to the fact that the
proposed remedy would ignore serious allegations and behavior found
by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to
be in violation of the Sherman Act; and it would confer upon
Microsoft powers and authority the market does not allow it to
possess currently. Thus, the proposed remedy would not be in the
public interest and would be disastrous for many third parties,
while greatly benefitting Microsoft.. If the remedy proposed
includes both the Final Judgement and the Competitive Impact
Statement, the proposal is wholly inconsistent with the Complaint
and its allegations due to the fact that the Competitive Impact
Statement is not even consistent with the Final Judgement which in
turn is not responsive to the Complaint.
Specifically, the most glaring and perverse inconsistency is the
base of nearly all damage rendering the Final Judgement inadequate
and insulting. That inconsistency is the fact that the Complaint is
substantially built on the definition of an operating system. The
Competitive Impact Statement defines an operating system in a manner
wholly consistent with the Complaint. The Competitive Impact
Statement definition is in Section III ``Description Of The
Practices Giving Rise To The Alleged Violations'', subsection B
``Factual Background'', subsection 1 ``Microsoft's
Operating System Monopoly''. The Complaint definition is in
Section IV ``The Relevant Markets'', subsection A
``The PC Operating System Market''. Astonishingly, in
this very subsection the Complaint states truthfully, that No other
product duplicates of fully substitutes for the
[[Page 30302]]
operating system.'' Yet the Complaint incorrectly states in
Section IV ``The Relevant Markets'', that ``There are
two relevant markets. The market for personal computer operating
systems, and the market for Internet browsers.'' This is
foolish, indeed. There are two relevant markets. The market for
personal computer operating systems, and the market for applications
which includes Internet browsers. Note also that the District Court
found and the Appeals Court agreed, that Microsoft illegally tied
its Explorer browser into Windows in a nonremovable way while
excluding rivals, in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. The
illegal tie-in also injured certain other application developers
developing under Windows, who may not have been involved with
browsers..
Notwithstanding, the Complaint makes reference to
``Microsoft's Windows operating system'' in section III
subsection C. The Complaint refers often to ``Microsoft's
Windows operating system monopoly''. That an operating system
enables virtual software unification of the hardware computer
components and resources, exposing them, and thus facilitates use of
those resources and components by users (consumers) and
applications, is a perfectly acceptable and commonly understood
definition of an operating system. However the Final Judgement
creates a new class of product called a Microsoft Operating System
Product (my emphasis) This new class, according to the Final
Judgement, includes Windows 2000 Profession, Windows XP Home and
Professional, and their successors. The Final Judgement further
states in the definition of the term ``Microsoft Operating
System Product,'' that the code comprising the same
``shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole
discretion.'' (Section VI--Definitions) We are lost. In
spite of the fact that the Competitive Impact Statement recognizes
what an operating system is, it confers upon the above listed
Microsoft operating systems the designation ``Microsoft
Operating System Product''. The new class and the reliance on
Middleware by the Final Judgement and the Competitive Impact
Statement, permits Microsoft to evade due penalties for established
violations and further abuse their operating system monopoly by
expanding their ``tie-in'' policy and rendering harmed
ISV's among others, to the status of market irrelevance. This is a
position Microsoft does not currently enjoy. Allowing Microsoft to
define what an operating system is ( through their monopoly control
and now U.S. Justice Department assistance) eliminates the threat of
Middleware and applications which may compete with Microsoft
applications. Indeed, applications not yet conceived can be
preempted until Microsoft ``discovers'' them and adds them
to their monopoly. For such cause, many people recognize that
breaking up Microsoft is the best first step in correction of
alleged and established abuse. Recognizing and enforcing the
legitimate (in this case) separation of operating system and
application is the best way to eliminate the basis by which
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly operating system caused damage and
continues to do so. Separating the operating system would encourage
its owner to make public all feature provided by the underlying
hardware manufacturers. It would further encourage competion between
hardware component manufacturers which manufacturers are as much
victimized by Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly operating system as
consumers and ISVs by virtue of the fact that hardware components'
interfaces must suit the Microsoft vision or be excluded. This why
so many computer software game manufacturers continued to develop
for DOS well into the late 1990's: the Windows interface denied them
full access to the functionality that enabled them to distinguish
themselves and satisfy their customers. No other vertical software
market had a customer base that allow it or the underlying hardware
vertical market to ``rebel''. We are missing many new
innovations.
Evading the operating system definition eliminates or surely
deteriorates the possibility of illegal tie-ins. All potential
beneficiaries of just and reasonable corrections that would have
been established by faithfully addressing the allegations of the
also semi-adequate Complaint, are instead further damaged or
untreated (left damaged) by the Final Judgement. In the Complaint
Section I subsection 5 it is stated the ``Microsoft's conduct
includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to
Microsoft's Windows operating system; . . .'' The
effects of these tie-ins are well known but not part of the
allegations of the Complaint. A Microsoft application with hidden
interfaces (tie-ins) to the operating system has a chilling effect
on the development of competitive products and prevents those few
who may discover this interface from remaining competitive because
of course, the hidden interface may be changed upon upgrade of
Microsoft's application or operating system, and the former
interface removed, thus ``breaking'' the competitors
application and causing consumers to spend more money unnecessarily.
This situation also allows Microsoft to occasionally appear to be
competing on the merits of their offering when such is not the case.
Promoting middleware as is done in the Complaint, the Final
Judgement, and the Competitive Impact Statement, does nothing to
alleviate this problem. As stated in the Complaint and noted above,
``No other product duplicates or fully substitutes for the
operating system.'' Indeed, middleware is just another
application, however useful. Denying ISVs and consumers the benefits
afforded them by a legitimately marketed bona-fide operating system
as opposed to an ``Operating System Product'' can not be
in the public interest, and is not responsive to the Complaint,
including prior court judgements.
When the ``Nimda'' computer virus appeared last year,
I was amazed at how it performed its activities. I was more
astonished when it occurred to me that I was reading about
functionality only a person familiar with Microsoft applications
programming would understand. What astonished me was the fact that
this and many other common viruses could not occur if Microsoft
applications were not tied in to the operating system. Operating
system vulnerabilities are policed, as it were, by the entire
computing community. Application vulnerabilities are not so well
noted, because applications other than middleware do not generally
offer much exposure to the programming consumer, and competition
keeps them distributed, not concentrated through the entire PC
universe. This is not the case with Microsoft applications. Commonly
used Microsoft applications are part of the ``programmers
toolkit'' for Windows developers. If they were not, the
anticompetitive position they occupy would be more blatant as only
Microsoft could interoperate with them, using the exposed underlying
functionality. On the other hand, having these products so fully
integrated into the operating system and each other while exposed
and enjoying the proliferation obtained from Microsoft's illegal use
of its monopoly operating system, facilitates more and more clever
exploits by hackers. The most common viruses affecting consumers
have used the victims own Microsoft applications. It is not so easy
to wreak havoc in other operating system environments where there
are no externally programmable, ubiquitous applications which
applications are fully integrated into the operating system via
hidden APIs or interfaces. Strangely enough, in the Linux community,
where essentially nothing is hidden, applications of this power
could exist and remain secure because the open source community
polices its environment jointly and severally. Interesting. . .
someone can break Microsoft products but only Microsoft can fix
them. Who pays? Thus we have another nasty by-product of the tie-in
problem. It would be eliminated or greatly reduced with a return to
application development competition based on an operating system
exposed on a non-discriminatory basis.
It would thus be disastrous for ISVs and consumers alike if
Microsoft had authority to regulate security issues for operating
system and applications alike. That power is also effectively
granted by the Final Judgement where security APIs and documentation
are to regulated directly or indirectly by Microsoft, the antithesis
of security in consumer and commercial computing.
That the Final Judgement creates a new class called Microsoft
Operating System Product, is reprehensible, clearly evading the
issues addressed by the complaint. That ISVs who know how to use
computing facilities as well as and better than Microsoft should be
relegated to the use of middleware for protection from abuse and for
development is not contemplated by the Complaint or Court findings;
is unjustly discriminatory, and not in the public interest; denying
the public the expected benefits of many new applications which may
or may not use, or be middleware; yet must have the access to the
same APIs and documentation as any other entity in the computing
arena. Indeed, many of the best among us study hardware
documentation for software development, and vice versa. Shall the
United States Justice Department and Microsoft alter this historic
landscape of a market in the interest of anyone other than
Microsoft?
The Competitive Impact Statement seeks to limit the competition
that competes against Microsoft and others in selected markets, by
[[Page 30303]]
requiring that ISVs must be of a certain size in the market and have
had that position over a particular period of time in order to
obtain API disclosure relief under Section III.D of the Final
Judgement; further enabling Microsoft to evade Complaint allegations
and even Sherman Act violations it has been found guilty of. This is
the case because again, some small mind has not yet learned that
computing facilities are continually reused by bright agile minds.
Interfaces used for middleware in one mind are perfect and necessary
for another application in the mind of another party. This
reuseability is the inherent nature of computer software and even
the smallest computer hardware components. The various underlying
markets must not be constrained by this taking on behalf of
Microsoft. The limited vision of Bill Gates' nightmares and
appetites are not the proper perspective to use to correct the
abuses of Microsoft's monopoly operating system.
The Competitive Impact Statements states in defining a Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product, that such a product must have
``at least one million copies distributed in the U.S. within
the previous year'' (my emphasis) .It further states that this
reqirement ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative
obligations--including the API disclosure required by Section
III.D . . . being triggered by minor or even nonexistent products
that have not established a competitive potential in the market and
that might even be unknown to Microsoft development
personnel.'' (my emphasis) This is preposterous! This
constitutes unjust and unlawful restraint of trade and unjust
discrimination. The Final Judgement does not restrict ISVs to a size
or type insofar as their right to obtain the benefit of relief under
Section III.D is concerned. If such were the case, the U.S. and
Microsoft have decided who has the right to compete where in the
computing market which as stated above, consists of many integrated
and simultaneously distinct and competing markets. This carving of
the competing development community, to the benefit of Microsoft, is
ironically, the exact opposite of what should be carved. Neither the
U.S. nor Microsoft has the right to determine what merely new,
useful, and innovative products may be created using any
functionality of a legitimate operating system. Is this why the
evasion technique deployed is to call an operating system an
operating system product instead of an operating system?
How dare this decree suggest that Microsoft development
personnel should be aware of what all or any others are doing in
development. Microsoft development personnel can not provide
consumers a finished product after any number of beta tests, nor can
they secure the products they make. The Revised Proposed Final
Judgement and related Competitive Impact Statement are a stench in
the nostrils of intelligent, informed consumers. Unless a settlement
can resolve the issues raised herin, Microsoft should be broken into
a least two separate pieces: operating systems and applications.
Respectively Submitted,
Leon H. Carrington,
STB Practitioner
(301) 862-1604
MTC-00033854
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing in regards to the recent Microsoft antitrust
settlement, and the attempts to hold long hearings of within the
Judiciary Committee. Due to legislative time constraints and the
current recession, absolutely no more action should be taken at the
federal level. I personally don't think that this case should have
ever reared its ugly head in the first place. This lawsuit has been
perpetuated for the last three years; it is a waste of the
government's time and money that could be used on more critical
priorities in these disheartening times.
Microsoft's products were--and are--both practical and
satisfying to their customers. The only complaints toward Microsoft
were coming from their competitors. Now, as much as I do not believe
that this case should NOT have happened, the settlement continues
represents a mutually fair and reasonable outcome. In fact, a court-
appointed mediator and small armies of lawyers negotiated the
agreement, yet again emphasizing the point about wasted government
time and money.
I implore you not to pursue any more litigation, or, for that
matter, any further action at all. Please lay this case to rest.
Thank you. Sincerely,
Barbara Champaigne
1072 Oak Street
Nenah, WI 54956
P.S. I think this country is getting ``sue'' crazy!
MTC-00033855
38943 Swordfish Common
Fremont, CA 94536
October 15, 2001
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
DOJ Antitrust Chief Charles A. James
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20240
Dear Messrs. Ashcroft and James:
Please see attached San Francisco Chronicle article written by
Mr. Paul Bechner pertaining to the Microsoft s anti-trust case
initiated by the previous Department of Justice under Clinton
Administration. As one of millions of consumers in the world, I feel
same way as Mr. Paul Bechner does about the Microsoft anti-trust
case.
Mr. Bechner's article indicates how unfair and unjust the
previous Department of Justice was, along with 19 states' Attorney
Generals. A few rival companies are lobbying state attorneys and
legislators to encourage more legal and regulatory action against
Microsoft. Microsoft is not a tobacco company. It does not harm the
consumers. On the contrary, the company has consistently delivered
new and innovative products at better prices to consumers and
businesses.
Thank you for taking the time to read Mr. Paul Bechner's
article.
Sincerely,
Francis Cheng
MTC-00033856
Thomas Holmes, 3005 Montgomery Road, Shaker Heights, OH 444122 USA
tel. +1 216 283 2010, fax +1 216 283 2009, email
[email protected]
December 6, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I was extremely pleased to hear that the Department of Justice
has decided to settle its antitrust dispute against the Microsoft
Corporation, which is why I have take then opportunity to writ to
you during this comment period to express my opinion on this issue.
Millions of dollars and countless hours have been wasted on both
sides of this dispute. Microsoft has completely changed for the
better the way most companies manage their business on a day to day
basis. Why did our Government set out to kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs? This settlement will be good for the American
economy.
I am pleased that we may be able to finally put this lawsuit
behind us. I am pleased that you have had the foresight to settle
this case on the federal level. We do not need congressional action
on this matter. Hopefully the states that are still considering
litigation will see the wisdom in settling.
Sincerely,
Thomas Holmes
MTC-00033857
Joyce R. Kerze
4899 Golf Village Drive
Powell, Ohio 43065
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
As an avid user of Microsoft products, I would like to express
my opinion that legal action against Microsoft should stop. I
believe that the current settlement still suffices; it allows
computer manufacturers new rights to configure systems with access
to Windows features. I have been following the economic recession,
and feel that further action against Microsoft will only foster the
current negative state of the economy. I urge you to fully close the
case against Microsoft
Sincerely,
Joyce R. Kerze
MTC-00033858
David Lukens, M.D.
3320 3320 Prarie Hills Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
The agreement that was reached between Microsoft and the Justice
Department in antitrust dispute was carefully negotiated to address
concerns on both sides of the issue.
[[Page 30304]]
Microsoft will have to make a number of concessions and changes in
the way that it licenses and markets its products, but will be
allowed to continue to use the integrated technology that has
allowed it lead the industry.
During this period of public comment, I wanted to register my
view that it would be in everyone's best interest for the Department
of Justice to approve the settlement. America's computer industry is
the world's best, and was a major player in the 90's economic boom.
Microsoft gets a lot of credit for this. It is bad policy to keep it
hobbled with litigation.
Thank you for accepting my comments on this issue.
Sincerely,
David Lukens
MTC-00033859
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
As a concerned citizen of this great country, I write you to
express my interest in the recent Microsoft settlement. As I have
been a supporter of the settlement in the past, I am urging you to
support the decision to take no further action in this matter. As I
see the news daily, I am concerned about the current recession and
am hoping for a swift recovery. As technological advancement is
delayed, so is our economic growth. This recession has also had a
devastating effect on state budgets, and it does not make sense to
spend resources on delaying a settlement that has already been
achieved. This settlement is fair and beneficial to all parties. It
can only help our economy flourish and our country to prosper.
Sincerely,
Fahed Raad
14250 Applewood Court
Elm Grove, WI 53122
MTC-00033860
Thomas A. Tisch
15040 Encina Ct., Saratoga, CA 95070 Email:
[email protected]
November 4, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am appalled that you would let your department settle with
Microsoft on the proposed basis. I have spent 20 years in the
venture capital and computer industry during which time I have
personally observed Microsoft steal secrets, be duplicitous in its
dealings, and through its dominance of the operating system force
acceptance of other Microsoft products. At least two companies of
which I have been an investor and a director have directly been
harmed by Microsoft monopoly practices. One (Stac) won a $100
Million judgment against Microsoft for stealing patented
information. The judgment was no more than a slap on the wrist of
the economic juggernaut. The other saw its premier product line
integrated into Microsoft products and effectively given away until
the company was reduced to ashes. As a personal user, I have wasted
hours, even days, of my time dealing with dysfunctional Microsoft
products, products that in a more competitive environment would have
been driven from the marketplace or forced to upgrade in quality.
What other company can delay, or miss a promised introduction
date for a new product by 6 or more months and not suffer
competitive penalties? None other but Microsoft. Not General Motors,
not General Electric, not United Airlines, not IBM, not ATT. The
time is here when the Federal Government, for which you have some
responsibility, can be severely crippled by Microsoft business
decisions and for which the Federal Government--along with the
rest of us--can find no relief in competitive products or
services.
The proposed remedies for the Microsoft antitrust case are a
sham and sellout on behalf of the American people and hundreds of
thousands of workers in the computer industry. It is not something
to be pushed under the Sept. 11th rug. In fact core ethical values
are at stake in this matter, as they are in the issues of Sept.
11th. Perhaps it's too late for you exercise some leadership in this
matter (as others before you have done). Perhaps not. It's up to
you.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Tisch
MTC-00033861
2417 Hillview Drive
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
December 7, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
I am writing you today, to express my support for the settlement
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I feel this
settlement is fair, and that no further legal actions should be
taken against Microsoft by the Federal Government. It is in the best
interest of our economy to let this issue rest and for the Federal
Government to move onto other endeavors. Under the agreement,
Microsoft pledged not only to devote resources to comply with the
terms of the proposed agreement, but to become a more responsible
industry leader. Through a court appointed mediator several issues
were resolved after intense negotiations. Microsoft agreed to
communicate even more with other companies; share information about
their software design and competitors will retain the right to sue
Microsoft if they believe Microsoft is not complying with the
agreement.
Now is the time to allow the settlement to take effect and allow
Microsoft to return its focus on innovation, not litigation.
Sincerely,
Theresa Underwood
MTC-00033862
PO Box 135
Monterey, MA 01245
6 December 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
This two-month period the people of the United States now have
to express our concern about further litigation against Microsoft is
a wonderful use of free speech. 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; that is where the litigation should
end. The settlement was just and right: it allowed Microsoft to
continue doing business, while allowing competitors to sue Microsoft
if they do not think the company is complying with the agreement.
No more litigation should be enacted at the federal level. With
a reasonable settlement already in place, further government action
would only waste more time and money. In 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 here and abroad. Lastly, Microsoft is one of
our top IT businesses and represents the determination and hard work
we as Americans value.
In a battle that the government has alrady been fought and won,
I believe it would be in our best interest not to continue suing
Microsoft. Let us get our economy back on track and start supporting
products and companies that are made in the USA. Thank you for you
time.
Sincerely,
J.T. Buchar
MTC-00033863
John Millet
1818 27th St, Sacramento, CA 958 14
January 2,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Ms. Hesse:
The economy is in recession. Our country is at war with
terrorism. Yet, we are still dealing with this anti-trust case
against Microsoft. Let's get our priorities in order.
I am glad to see that the government has found a way to settle
this case and allow Microsoft to get back to work doing what it does
best. Microsoft's influence on our economy is great and putting this
case behind it will allow them to be the national leader they are
and stimulate this economy with new and innovative products at
affordable prices for consumers.
Settlement of this case is best for our country, the world
economy, the tech industry and individual consumers. I hope that
this case is wrapped up soon.
Thanks.
John Millet
[[Page 30305]]
MTC-00033864
elanie Teague
1102 22nd St. Unit 606
Hickory. NC 28601
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Deportment of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse:
The proposed settlement in the U.S, v. Microsoft case is clearly
a compromise because it does not completely satisfy Microsoft or its
competitors, I support the settlement because it attempts to reach a
middle ground for both sides and will ultimately benefit consumers,
the technology industry and the economy. End users will be
guaranteed flexibility because new microsoft operating systems will
have a mechanism that alIows them to remove or re-enable middleware
products such as the internet browser. email utilities and messaging
toots. Computer manufacturers will have flexibililty because
Microsoft will not be allowed to penalize them for distributing
software that competes with Microsoft.
The settlement also allows a technical Committee to respond
quickly to complaints about Microsoft compliance. Microsoft
competitors hove other benefits as a result of this settlement. It
Is lime to reach an agreement and allow the technology Industry to
get back to developing new products and encouraging innovation that
will stimuiate the economy.
MTC-00033865
ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
P.O. Drawer 38 o OldTown,FL32660
(352)542-7942--Fax# (352)542-3417
January 12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
It has come to my attention that both the Justice Department,
and Microsoft have reached a settlement in the three-year antitrust
case. I am happy to hear about the settlement, and I support it
100%.
This settlement will allow computer makers the means to remove
access to various features of Windows, such as Microsoft's Internet
Explorer web browser, windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger.
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows
operating system.
In fact, Microsoft has even agreed not to retaliate against
software developers who develop or promote software that competes
with Windows, I would like to see this case settled as quickly as
possible, since further delay would end up hurting the American
economy. Do not prosecute Microsoft any further!
Thank you.
Anderson, Jr
MTC-00033866
From: Gary Pearce
9197878031
Dec. 26, 2001 01:00PM P1
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
Dear Attorney Hesse:
I encourage approval of the proposed settlement in the U.S. v.
Microsoft so that technology companies can focus on innovation and
competition rather than litigation As a consumer and an educator,I
find that the Microsoft products are easy to use and allow
integration of several software programs for consumers who do not
have a lot of experience with computer programs. This settlement
will allow continued ease for the consumer while at the same time
providing some safegrounds that Microsoft's competitors wanted to
guarantee them and consumers greater flexibility in the use of other
operating Systems.
The settlement will allow access to technical specifications,
provide a mechanism for removing products such as the Internet
browser, and sets up a Technical Committee to respond to complaints
about Microsoft's compliance with the settlement provisions. The
settlement offers benefits to the technology industry and consumers
and provides a reasonable compromise.
Sincerely,
Shannon Aycock
MTC-00033867
FROM: AUDE ACCTG SVCS I NC
ROBERT M & LE T. RUDE
21301 8th Place W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20330-0001
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
We have taken this opportunity to write in and express our
opinion of the antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corporation. We
feel that this suit has been bogged down in the judicial system for
long enough and it is time for the government to allow Microsoft to
get back to work. It needs to continue setting the standard in the
worldwide technology industry.
It is our opinion that this suit has pulled the American economy
down, especially in the vital IT sector. The bottom line is,
Microsoft is one of this nation's largest employers, and the
perpetuation of this case during these times of economic uncertainty
is imprudent. Microsoft is and always has been a great company. They
have given millions of dollars to charity and have changed the way
we view computers forever. Microsoft made technology accessible to
Americans in a form that was usable. Without this company, there
would have been no ``P.C. revolution.'' We believe that
the terms of this settlement will ensure that there are no further
violations of antitrust committed by the company, especially with
the establishment of a technical committee which will monitor
Microsoft and prevent them From any future violations.
We arc please that an end to this litigation is in sight. Please
continue to support the settlement and the future of free enterprise
in this nation.
Sincerely,
Robert Rude Le Rude
Dorothy Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations.
[FR Doc. 02-5355 Filed 5-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P