[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 24495-24930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-160503]



MTC-00003461

From: David Hibshman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill wins again. Computer Industry loses again. One look at 
Microsoft's latest OS offering(XP) makes it clear why Microsoft's OS 
and applications should not be bundled together and should probably 
be spun off as separate companies all together. Windows Xp offers 
MP3/WMA creation, Video Editing, Cd Creation, Chat, Messaging, and 
Video Conferencing all as part of the core software required to run 
a computer. Microsoft clearly uses it's foothold on the Market to 
offer otherwise successful third party software in it's own OS to 
help ensure they keep their grasp on the industry and to bump off 
smaller vendors from becoming bigger competitors. Microsoft 
qualifies as a monopoly in every sense of the definition and should 
be punished for it.




MTC-00003462

From: Paul Rech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    You're no doubt tired of reading these e-mails, so let me cut to 
the chase.
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft will not do a thing. None 
of the provisions will have any effect, which may be what the 
current administration really wants.
    Here's what would make a difference and it's quite simple.
    1) Open their file formats, protocols, APIs.
    2) Allow vendors to clearly price the cost of the Windows OS 
when you purchase a PC.
    The former will allow all companies to compete again in 
application software. MS keeps data locked into their apps by 
changing these formats every now and then. Forcing consumers to keep 
using their products. MS Word is the standard not because it's the 
best, but because so many businesses have data stored in those types 
of docs. They don't even want to think about the hassle of 
converting. The latter will show people how much they have to pay 
for the MS OS and allow them to choose to pay for it or not. Lots of 
people have a perfectly good copy of Win 98 sitting around, why 
should they have to buy XP with a new computer when they don't want 
or need it?
    Get rid of bundling once and for all.
    Paul Rech
    Computer Consultant
    651-430-9935
    rechpj@bitstream.net




MTC-00003463

From: Ray Drainville/Argument from Design
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I'm adding my voice to those who are against the settlement with 
Microsoft over its monopolistic practices, as that settlement stands 
today. There are some simple, yet important reasons why I'm doing 
this:
    *�1AHaving MS give away a billion dollars worth of software 
& refurbished hardware to the country's poorest schools doesn't 
punish the company: what it does is greatly strengthen their hand in 
one of the last areas in which they don't currently have a monopoly. 
One possible solution would be to have MS donate one billion dollars 
to these schools, to have them use this money for IT as the schools 
see fit.
    *�1AThis billion-dollar giveaway looks very expensive for MS 
on paper, but that number is based upon the market value of the 
hardware & software: the actual cost to MS is estimated to be 
about one-tenth of that figure. This seems a ludicrously tiny 
settlement for such an important violation of law. Once again, 
forcing MS to donate one billion dollars to these schools would be a 
more effective way to punish the company.
    *�1AAs the settlement stands, it requires MS to share 
various types of code with commercial rivals; 
`commercial' is spelled out in the document quite 
clearly. However, currently MS`s strongest competitors come from 
non-profit entities: Apache (web-serving software), Linux, Perl, and 
those who are building a compatible & free version of MS`s .NET 
initiative. By not specifically including these non-profit 
organizations in the settlement documentation, the DoJ is allowing 
MS to protect its monopoly from those organizations who are most 
strenuously competing with it.
    *�1AThe settlement does nothing to propose what is to be 
done should MS violate the agreement. What if MS is proven to be 
acting in an uncompetitive fashion again? The agreement does not 
give the DoJ any teeth in enforcing the settlement. It doesn`t give 
MS any reason to comply.
    I would strongly urge the DoJ to be extremely cautious when 
writing up settlements with Microsoft. History has shown that the 
company is more than willing to violate agreements, and the past 
decade or so has seen them disregard mild remedies in order to 
pursue their own interests. Give the settlement some teeth; 
Microsoft, after all, was found guilty. Currently, they won`t even 
admit that.
    Best,
    Ray Drainville
    Director, Argument from Design
    Argument from Design-Web & Multimedia
    ray@ardes.com http://www.ardes.com




MTC-00003464

From: Cody DeHaan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:19am
Subject: What a Joke!
    I find it rather a joke that Microsoft gets no punishment for 
what they did.
    Don`t get me wrong, I use Microsoft`s products, but something 
should be done to prevent it from happening in the future.




MTC-00003465

From: Rob Roth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:34am
Subject: Settlement
    Microsoft should be reined in on a tight leash. The 9 holdout 
states are correct in their perception of what this company can do 
if not tightly controlled.
    Microsoft has the technology to end up controlling every ones 
computer and CHARGING for it if not controlled. They have already 
demonstrated that. 20 years ago they broke up IBM for basically the 
same reason they are looking at Microsoft.
    Please stick to mission and hold tight the reins on Microsoft.
    Rob Roth
    Hernando, Florida.




MTC-00003466

From: Jerry Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:57am
Subject: comments on your judgement
    It is quite clear to me that this was written by lawyers who 
have no real experience with software development and software 
coding. I was agreeing to quite a bit of this until III.J in which 
you opened the floodgates of a gigantic loophole for Microsoft to 
jump into. Given the history of Microsoft in the last 10 years. This 
amounts to `business as usual' for Microsoft. What a 
waste of our tax dollars. You all did a masterful job during the 
trial in showing us what a Monopolistic power Microsoft was, then 
with this judgement you have really blown it. No wonder Bill Gates 
calls this a `fair' settlement. If I were Bill I would 
too!
    I would strongly suggest you take into account the somewhat 
stricter format that the other nine states are taking.
    Two things that were not addressed at all: 1) data formats. The 
reason Microsoft has such a hold on the PC market is its office 
products. He who holds the keys to the data, has control. There was 
NO mention of providing the data format definitions of the office 
products that MS has to third parties. 2) real competition. Most of 
your document was about not limiting competition in the Windows 
space. Very little about real competition from Apple and Linux, 
FreeBSD, Beos and other possible contenders.
    The reason that real competition will not be achieved with your 
document is that there is no provision for MS to be open with its 
data formats, and communication protocols. What about what they did 
with Kerberos with their `embrace, extend, and 
extingush' method of changing the Kerberos authentication 
scheme that all other OS`s use but now do not work with Windows 
Servers?
    Until there is real choice of OS, meaning that MS Office 
products are required to run on all other Platforms, other OS`s will 
never have a real chance to compete. And until we get real 
competition MS will continue to have a monopoly in the software 
industry. And we as consumers will never have a real choice.




MTC-00003467

From: Stephen Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:41am
Subject: Support for States/DC Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to quickly write in support of the settlement 
proposed by the 9 states and DC. The DOJ`s previous decision was too 
much of a wrist slap, full of loopholes which Microsoft`s lawyers 
will be more than happy to exploit. To be quite honest, after 
reading the original proposal (not Judge Jackson`s, but the next 
one) I got the eerie feeling that

[[Page 24293]]

Microsoft`s lawyers were more technically savvy than the 
governments_making sure that there were carefully worded 
exceptions for any of the major points that may have actually had 
any `bite'. While I am not a lawyer, I am a software 
engineer, and if I worked for Microsoft, I would find it quite easy 
to come up with some technical reasons why a particular 
`remedy' could be circumvented. Now about perception. It 
appears to me something odd is going on. The DOJ does an about face 
in the prosecution of Microsoft_once they appeared to really 
be trying to do something to help out the consumers. Now, we are 
given a proposals which absolutely lacks teeth. Microsoft at one 
time allowed themselves to be billed a million dollars a day just to 
be stubborn and not comply with government mandates. Now, Microsoft 
seems more than happy to do anything the government asks. I think 
this is because they realize that they`re not being asked to do much 
at all.
    Anyway, please give serious consideration to the recent states/
DC proposal in this matter and give the consumers/competitors some 
real relief.
    Stephen Perez,
    Software Engineer,
    Austin, Texas.




MTC-00003468

From: Craig L. Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed selltlement in this case is waay off! Instread of 
punishinng the guilty party, he is being rewarded! THis is insane. 
The settlement needs to be tougher.
    From a Robert X. Cringely article :
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, 
the government is shut out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, 
the military, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology_even the Department of Justice itself_have no 
rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary 
and that B-52s don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. 
They showed through the case little understanding of how the 
software business really functions. But they are also complying with 
the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with 
the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, 
when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free 
products could become a major force in any industry_well, it 
just would have seemed insane.
    Craig L. Stevenson 




MTC-00003469

From: Sondra Janssen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:41am
Subject: Microsoft
    It`s time to stop making the lawyers richer. This is just some 
wanting something for nothing or to the left politics. Real life 
things are not equal. Let the economy run.




MTC-00003470

From: jason mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a shareholder of both Microsoft and Apple Stock and a US 
citizen, I hope that you take the time to look closely as how this 
proposed settlement will affect Microsoft`s monopoly. From what I 
have read it appears that the proposed settlement will actually 
increase Microsoft`s monopoly in one of the few places where their 
competitors (specifically Apple Computer) remain strong.
    As proven time and time again the cost of Upkeep for Microsoft 
systems is so astronomically high, where Apple computers last longer 
with less maintenance.
    By `donating' billions of dollars to schools, 
Microsoft will in effect be locking them into an expensive upgrade 
and maintenance package with an inferior solution, while extending 
their monopoly into a market that they have traditionally had 
trouble making inroads into. Please don`t permit this to happen.
    Jason
    Gravity Switch
    89 Market St.
    Northampton, MA 01060
    www.gravityswitch.com
    413.586.9596




MTC-00003471

From: jason mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to also put in a good word for Steve Satchell.
    Jason
    Gravity Switch
    89 Market St.
    Northampton, MA 01060
    www.gravityswitch.com
    413.586.9596




MTC-00003472

From: Clyde Stauffer
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/8/01 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I believe the proposed anti-monopoly settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation is inadequate on two counts:
    (1) It does not adequately address contracts with EOMs that 
restrict their rights to offer multiple operating systems on the 
computers they sell. This restriction, from 1992 onward, made it 
very difficult (actually, nearly impossible) for anyone to purchase 
a computer with the IBM operating system OS/2 pre-loaded. I use OS/
2, but only because I am bought it independently and installed it 
myself. Most ordinary computer purchasers are not capable of, and do 
not want to, exert this degree of independence from the Microsoft 
monopoly.
    (2) It does not adequately address the competition extant from 
non-profit software entities such Linux and similar efforts. If 
these groups are not protected from the predatory efforts of 
Microsoft they will not be able to fully compete, a situation which 
would not be to the advantage of the consumer.
    I respectfully submit that Microsoft should be:
    (1) Prevented from making any type of excusionary contract with 
OEMs; and
    (2) Forced to treat all competitors, profit and non-profit 
oriented alike, on the same basis.

[[Page 24294]]

    Sincerely yours,
    Clyde Stauffer




MTC-00003473

From: William Woesner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:59am
    I believe that Microsoft has a monopoly. Separate Microsoft into 
different companies, IE explorer,
    Office, and operating system
    William Woesner




MTC-00003474

From: Tony Hardie-Bick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is one very simple remedy that is required: Microsoft must 
open its Office file formats.
    As a UK citizen, I have been alarmed by the way in which 
Microsoft is playing government agencies like the UK National Health 
Service for dummies. Again, they are preparing a trap that involves 
the use of closed file formats, the significance of which will only 
be felt incrementally, in years to come.
    The opening of Microsoft source code is not as important.
    Yours sincerely,
    Tony Hardie-Bick
    London, England.




MTC-00003475

From: Todd VerBeek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:06am
Subject: what a waste
    The settlement with Microsoft isn`t a setttlement; it`s a 
capitulation. The restrictions it places on Microsoft are as feeble 
and meaningless as the ones in the consent decree of several years 
ago... the toothless slap on the wrist that made this suit necessary 
in the first place. It accomplishes nothing but to 
_condone_ and _endorse_ the position of 
Microsoft as the 800-ton gorilla of the technology industry.
    Compelling Microsoft to donate software to poor schools isn`t a 
punishment or a remedy of any kind; it`s an endorsement of predatory 
pricing! Let`s all watch as Microsoft gives software away (below 
cost), drives the remaining competition out of the education market, 
and later starts charging for the (practically mandatory) upgrades.
    Consumers will still be offered nothing but superficial 
variations on the Microsoft blueprint when we go shopping for a PC. 
They will be offered a single operating system, a single word 
processor, a single spreadsheet, etc. Programmers (my livelihood) 
will have the `freedom' to innovate outside the world 
Microsoft defines... and die of starvation because that world is 
dwindling to nothing, or the `freedom' to innovate 
within the Microsoft model, hoping for some table scraps as we help 
to advance Microsoft`s business plans. This settlement assures those 
of use who aren`t in bed with Microsoft with only one consolation: 
There will be another suit in a few years, and by that time 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices (and the damages therefrom) will 
be even greater, and even more difficult for the courts to ignore.
    Todd VerBeek
    1311 Lake Dr SE #2
    Grand Rapids MI 49506




MTC-00003476

From: The Bryant`s
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:22am
Subject: Settlement
    I cannot believe that the DOJ would spend so much of the 
Taxpayers money to achieve so little in the Microsoft case. The 
taxpayers are not served by the DOJ decision. Computer users are not 
served by the decision. Our children are not served well by the 
decision. The only entities served by the decision are Microsoft and 
the legal community. I think the hard working taxpaying community 
should come away from this issue with more than a due bill from 
Microsoft and the DOJ.
    I support Red Hat`s proposal to exclude software donations by 
Microsoft to the public school system or any organization. Also, it 
would be in the Taxpayers interest to prevent Microsoft (or any 
company) from selling the Academic Edition of its products at a 
tremendous discount from what other users must pay. This practice 
creates artificial demand for Microsoft products by forcing students 
to learn products which may be inferior to other software. Academic 
Edition sales harm smaller software developers by not giving them 
access to a potentially large user market.
    Public education dollars should not be spent to subsidize the 
sale and teaching of proprietary products in the public school 
system.
    Mark Bryant
    Secratary/Treasurer
    Charmark Computer Services, Inc.
    1100 West Lloyd Expressway
    Suite 102
    Evansville, IN 47708
    Telephone (812) 422-1776




MTC-00003477

From: David May
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am truly disappointed by the settlement that was brokered 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. It does nothing of substance to reign 
back Microsoft`s illegal behavior in light of their monopoly on the 
PC desktop. Microsoft is poised to attack multimedia companies and 
ISPs with their current exclusive desktop policies and I fear if 
nothing is done to curb their behavior, these companies will no 
longer provide viable competition in a market place the desperately 
needs it. I feel that if this settlement goes through with all the 
exceptions that are built into it, we will be here again in several 
years trying to reign Microsoft in with legal action. They have 
shown that they are more than willing to ignore or circumvent 
business limitations placed on them by the authorities. They have 
also shown that they are more than willing to lie about their 
behavior if they feel it is in their best interest. They will find 
loopholes in this settlement and stretch them to their fullest to 
continue with business as usual.
    Please listen to the concerns of the 9 outstanding states and of 
industry groups that are raising their voices (like Ralph Nader et. 
al.). If this settlement goes through as scripted, we will be back 
here again trying to reign Microsoft back in. The landscape of 
competition will look much more desolate than it does now, though, 
if Microsoft has its way.
    Thank you.
    David May
    Senior UNIX System Administrator
    Albuquerque TVI
    505-224-3015




MTC-00003478

From: Patrick Mc Govern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Summary of the Microsoft judgement: Microsoft could not have 
dreamed up a better judgement if they tried! Imagine being punished 
by advertising your own products!!
    Proposed judgement:
    Since Microsoft`s actions affected the rights of the people, I 
propose the following:
    (1) Microsoft would pay 2 billion dollars to start a trust fund 
that would operate in perpetuity and support the development of free 
software. The Free Software Foundation or similar organization could 
be a good target for this effort. Their web address is http://
www.gnu.org/. This effort would further develop the foudational 
software for computers that is similar to the infrastructure of our 
national highway system. I hate toll roads!
    This action would seem to be the punishment that fits the crime. 
It would encourage competition, creativity, and reward the WORLD 
with free software. It would also allow Microsoft to compete as one 
company and stay competetive.
    Pat




MTC-00003479

From: Cray Horse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    Your original remedy called for MSFT to be split apart; now you 
are content that MSFT merely donate their software to schools. This 
is a horrible solution, since it will only serve to strengthen the 
MSFT monopoly in the educational market. Apple has suggested that 
MSFT be required to donate a large amount of cash to the schools, 
which would certainly harm MSFT profits in the short term but would 
not strike at the heart of their monopoly.
    The heart of the MSFT monopoly derives from their control of the 
operating system in conjunction with their control of dominant 
desktop applications, such as MS Office. Every time someone emails 
us an Powerpoint presentation or a Word document, we are forced to 
use a MSFT application. Everytime MSFT changes one of their file 
formats, we are forced to upgrade our Office installation so that we 
can continue to process our email correspondence. Since the Office 
applications are only supported on MSFT operating systems, we are 
also forced to

[[Page 24295]]

purchase MSFT operating systems and keep them up-to-date against our 
will.
    I therefore propose the following simple conduct rememdy for the 
MSFT monopoly: require MSFT to support ALL of their application 
software on ALL operating systems with a non-negligible installed 
base (eg., at least 1% market share). That would require MSFT to 
support MS Office, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and SQL Server on 
Apple OS X, Sun Solaris, Linux, Palm OS, and others as well. This 
solution would strike at the heart of MSFT`s operating system 
monopoly, because now (for the first time) our choice of application 
software is truly separated from our choice of operating system.
    The details are tricky but managable by an appropriately careful 
mind. The restriction must apply to MSFT and any company in which 
they had more than 5% direct or indirect interest; otherwise, they 
could circumvent the restriction by spinning off their application 
software groups into subsidiaries. The restriction should prohibit 
them from releasing any application on Windows until it had been 
released on all competitive operating systems. The restriction must 
also ensure that the quality of the non-Windows ports to be at least 
as high as the Windows ports, otherwise they could torpedo the 
restriction by making their software unusable on non-Windows 
systems. (For example, you could impose financial penalties if the 
quality of the non-Windows port falls below the quality of the 
Windows port, or prevent them from shipping/selling Windows products 
while the non-Windows were of lesser quality.) And so on.
    Sincerely,
    A citizen who believes in competitive markets




MTC-00003480

From: Terry Braun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am a programmer with 20 years experience. The proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is pathetic- the real message is that MS 
is free to continue its anti-competitive practices. In the process 
it makes the US government look incompetent- and the US government 
is supposed to be MY representative in this business.
    Your lack of vigorous prosectution of this case will ultimately 
cost this country by making its software industry less competitive 
and therefore opening the door to other non-US companies. The 
current settlement brings discrace on our government since it is 
clear that there is neither an understanding of the world of 
computers nor a desire to obtain that expertise.
    Do better
    Terry Braun
    612-963-6570




MTC-00003481

From: Don Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement with Microsoft is entirely inadequate. 
There is basically no penalty imposed and few restrictions on future 
action by Microsoft. I think the only way to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to exploit its monopolistic position is to split the 
Operating System into a different company from its other software 
offerings. By allowing these to continue to be developed by the same 
company, there is no incentive for them to expose interfaces, or 
reason for them not to continue to imbed unrelated products into the 
operating system. This combination also stifles development of these 
products for other operating systems_does anyone think that 
the MS Office suite would not be available on Unix, Solaris, or 
Linux if it was owned by anyone else? Other than Lotus Smartsuite 
and Star Office, neither of which has a significant market share, 
there are no other office suites left on the market. I remember when 
there were over a dozen word processors, many spread sheet programs, 
and specialized packages for publishing. Now you have basically one 
choice, which is expensive and provides functions not needed or used 
by most of the market. I believe that if there were other choices, 
this software would be offered in various price ranges with 
functionality more in line with users needs. Microsoft has been 
innovative in software development, but this is not what has made 
them what they are today_it is their willingness to push 
others out of the market (most word processors, Netscape, etc.) or 
buy them (Visio, Fox Software, etc.) to eliminate the competition, 
then raise prices and justify it by pointing to functionality that 
is not needed or used by the majority of the market.
    In summary, I think the settlement is totally inadequate. Only a 
separation of at least the operating system from the other software 
is required to once again stimulate development and innovation in 
the software market place. Microsoft now is a much bigger threat 
than IBM was when it was broken up, and I believe the remedy should 
be at least as severe, if not more so.
    Don Allen
    Allen Information Consultants, Inc.
    Indianapolis, IN
    `How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? 
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn`t make it a leg.'
    _Abraham Lincoln




MTC-00003482

From: KennMSR@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a travesty of Justice. 
This is an Antitrust settlement, so why let them put their machines 
in schools. The ultimate solution would be give competitors machines 
(Apple, which has an almost 60% share in the school marketand can 
run Windows operating system if necessary). Using their products 
would just make their slice of the pie larger and indoctrinate a new 
generation into being a Microsoft only culture. I do Apple 
consulting to private and Parochial schools who cannot afford a full 
time staff person for technical support, as opposed to tax based 
funded public schools. As I`ve seen locally anytime a school board 
insists on a conversion to Microsoft based systems the district goes 
from a Technology Teacher having part time duties maintaining the 
MacOS Computers to 3 or 4 Full time MCSE certified staff at $60K/YR 
(Philadelphia region) to keep their Microsoft Systems functioning. I 
see the same in Businesses the MIS departments specify Microsoft for 
job security reasons and to be able to have an MIS staff of more 
than one.
    I`ve been involved in Computers in Education since the early 
70`s when IBM and Digital Equipment were the computers of choice. 
I`ve also worked for Microsoft service providers and left when the 
Microsoft Mantra was the main focus of their sales efforts 
`only sell Microsoft products because we know they work 
together'.
    I just learned that America Online is discontinuing Netscape as 
a Web Browser, which is the only real alternative to Microsoft 
Internet Explorer which is under contract with AOL as the default 
browser.
    Kenn Marks
    KennMSr@aol.com
    Digital Data Systems




MTC-00003483

From: Alton, Matthew
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/8/01 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please prosecute the monopolistic filth known as Microsoft Corp. 
to the limits of the law. Your current proposed settlement 
constitutes a dereliction of duty bordering on treason.
    Thank you.
    Matthew Alton
    UNIX System Administration




MTC-00003484

From: John Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:18am
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello,
    I must admit that I am rather disappointed with the recent 
events in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Microsoft was found to be 
monopolistic, yet part of their punishment is to hand to them on a 
silver platter a market that Apple has worked very hard to 
cultivate. We are giving Microsoft absolutely no reason to change 
their practices. Even after being found monopolistic, Microsoft 
released Windows XP with invasive activation, and is making great 
strides toward its dream of software as a service, which I find to 
be quite alarming.
    Thank You,
    John Bishop




MTC-00003485

From: Number One
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This sounds much better for everybody. I see the justice 
department folding before corporate terrorists.
    George Frick
    frick@intsvc.com
    Red Hat Proposes to Enhance Microsoft Settlement Offer By 
Providing Open Source Software to All U.S. School Districts

[[Page 24296]]

    Open Source leader proposes to provide software to every school 
district in the United States if Microsoft provides computing 
hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts
    RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.?(BUSINESS WIRE)?Nov. 20, 2001?Red 
Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT_news) today proposed an alternative to 
the settlement announced today of the class-action lawsuit against 
Microsoft. Red Hat offered to provide open-source software to every 
school district in the United States free of charge, encouraging 
Microsoft to redirect the money it would have spent on software into 
purchasing more hardware for the 14,000 poorest school districts. 
Under the Red Hat proposal, by removing Microsoft`s higher-priced 
software from the settlement equation, Microsoft could provide the 
school districts with many more computers_greatly extending 
the benefits Microsoft seeks to provide school districts with their 
proposed settlement. Microsoft had proposed that, in settlement of 
class-action claims of price-gouging, the company donate computer 
hardware, software and support to 14,000 poor school districts 
throughout the United States. Under the proposed settlement, a 
substantial part of the value provided to schools would be in the 
form of Microsoft software.
    The Red Hat`s alternative proposal includes the following: 
Microsoft redirects the value of their proposed software donation to 
the purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This 
would increase the number of computers available under the original 
proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, and would increase 
the number of systems per school from approximately 14 to at least 
70.
    Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source RedHat 
Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States.
    Red Hat will provide online support for the software through the 
Red Hat Network.
    Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit 
at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their 
licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time 
limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat 
Network online distribution channel.




MTC-00003486

From: cmmorris@memphis.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act to comment on 
the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I am particularly comcerned about the proposed settlement`s 
effect on much of the software that I use, software produced by non-
comercial entities. Many people agree that it is free and open-
source software that is Microsoft`s greatest competition and thus 
should be considered in the setlement.
    Section III(J)(2) of the settlement contains strong language 
stating that Microsoft is not required to describe nor license API, 
Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting authentication 
and authorization to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria 
as a business.
    Section III(D) again prescribes certain rights to Microsoft 
competitors yet these rights apply only to comercial entities. I 
would like to see a settlement that opens the file formats of 
Microsofts dominant applications so that other applications on other 
platforms can read and write to them.
    Chris Morris




MTC-00003487

From: Steve Vasko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer reseller I strongly support the 9 state 
alternative over the justice departments initial settlement 
proposal. Porting office to multiple platforms is very important. 
Please consider keeping this in any final proposal that is put 
forward.
    Thanks,
    Steve Vasko
    Operations Manager
    Voice305-695-9779
    Fax305-695-9799
    www.editopia.com




MTC-00003488

From: dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The primary weapon, beyond the established, effective desktop 
monopoly, is data lock-in. Microsoft keeps data jailed and keeps 
changing the locks to perpetuate the protection by extortion. A 
remedy should address this problem directly. Making it an easier 
matter for any customer to take their data out of the Microsoft jail 
would promote competition without placing Microsoft under strict, 
long-term control of a government committee. The lock that allows 
illegal leveraging of the monopoly is the secrecy and continuous 
morphing of file formats and APIs. People should not be forced to 
purchase MS products in order to communicate with other people and 
businesses!
    I believe the current settlement is totally ineffective in 
curtailing MS`s behavior. It is less than a `slap on the 
wrist', so to speak. Thank you for your time and vigilance,
    Dan Williamson




MTC-00003489

From: Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Juggernaut
    Greetings,
    It looks from here like you caved in to Bill Gates and his 
empire. They are unrepentant and poised to continue with their brand 
of business as usual....which means that we consumers are hurt yet 
again. They are thugs. You know full well that they are a predatory 
entity, a corporation that uses its monopoly like a club to kill any 
real competition. All legal wrangling aside, Micrsoft can`t dodge 
that fact. When they are left to do as they will, they have 
exclusive right by economic threat to siphon off of society`s need 
for computing power like the parasites they are. The `playing 
field' Microsoft so proudly points to as its proving grounds 
for its product viability is littered with dead technology that, 90 
percent of the time, was far supuerior to the laughable offerings of 
Bill Gates and crew. The technology died, along with the companies 
that developed them because of Microsoft`s stranglehold on the 
market, and its tactics of excusivity deals, threats, and 
intimidation. Remember how they started out with DOS, a poor 
imitation of SCO UNIX? They had exclusive software rights to every 
PC sold by the then-standard, IBM. Clones had to keep some measure 
of compatibility, so they too contracted with Microsoft. Back in 
those days, Apple`s Mac with windowing, buttons, mouse and slick GUI 
interface was laughed at as a toy. Unix people were fringe kooks. 
Did anyone else see that when Windows emerged, it was a bad 
photocopy of Apple OS and Unix Motif/X-Windows?? They basically 
stole other ideas and profited from them. Seems I remember that the 
government did the wink-and-nod bit a few years ago when Apple 
asserted and proved its claim. Why is the government so fearful of 
Bill Gates? Does it figure he will be satisfied one day and just 
stop?? There are a few of us who make the choice in our personal 
lives to use superior product, such as Linux and Apple, which I use 
at home. I go to work and hold my nose as I labor all day on a 
modern Microsoft platform riddled with bugs, inconsistencies, and 
daily crashes. Why has such a slipshod product been allowed to 
swallow the market whole? Everyone winks and looks the other way as 
Gates tightens his grip. There are real, tangible costs to consumers 
and corporations when they are forced to adopt `the 
standard', in terms of down time that would not otherwise 
occur, and inflated monopolistic pricing.
    Do the right thing. Go for the throat. They are true 
evil_a cancer_and deserve no quarter.
    Otherwise, will we be driving Microsoft cars and buying 
Microsoft diamonds as they continue to grow? Will they oustrip any 
government effort to contain them?
    Thanks for your time,
    Lee Shouse
    CC:mishmash@kc.rr.com@inetgw




MTC-00003490

From: Leandro Guimar(FFFF)es Faria Corsetti Dutra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please take a look at the fourth paragraph onwards, from http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Leandro Guimara�7Ees Faria Corsetti Dutra +41 (21) 644 23 19
    http://homepage.mac.com./leandrod/ +41 (21) 216 15 93
    X Orange Telecom mailto:leandrod@mac.com
    Fita AsCII contra correio electr?nico HTML BRASIL




MTC-00003491

From: dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:33pm

[[Page 24297]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I side with the 9 states who would have Microsoft disclose the 
source code for IE. This should require all versions of IE. It would 
allow others to document the API without Microsoft having to 
disclose the source to Windows itself. Further, having a OS only 
version of Windows with no applications would give vendors a chance 
to make their systems unique and tailored to the use. Thank you.
    Dennis R. Newton
    4032 Hidden Spring Ct.
    Fort Irwin, CA 92310




MTC-00003492

From: Dan Humphries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement, and request a stronger one.
    Dan Humphries




MTC-00003493

From: weissman family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 12:40pm
Subject: MICROSOFT DECISION
    We have been very disheartened by the Justice Dept failure to 
fully protect American consumers from Microsoft. We have not read 
anything which articulates our opinion better than the following:
    `I was seething about Microsoft`s arrogance. Then I read 
about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the litigants in 
their monopoly suit. One of the provisions was that Microsoft was 
going to give a billion dollars worth of refurbished computers and 
Microsoft software to some of the poorest schools in the country. At 
first glance this seems altruistic, but then I started thinking 
about what a billion dollars of Windoze gear dumped into the 
academic market would mean to Apple, and my rage fired up again.
    Here`s a company that has been convicted of illegal business 
practices designed to limit competition. That competition includes 
Apple, of course. So, this crook of a company suggests that to make 
up for their crime, they will just make a new initiative into the 
last remaining market where Apple has a dominant position. A 
billion-dollar initiative into the academic market would mostly come 
out of Apple`s market share and have serious implications for 
Apple`s ability to maintain its lead in education!
    `We`re baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft 
for breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly 
make inroads into education_one of the few markets left where 
they do not have monopoly power,' Apple`s CEO Steve Jobs said 
in a statement.
    Well they do make some nice software, but you really need to 
have your hand on your wallet when you are dealing with the crew 
from Seattle! I have a solution, though. ;) How about requiring 
Microsoft to buy a whole bunch of iMacs and iBooks from 
Apple_say, a billion dollars` worth_add Office v.X and 
THEN give the computers to the schools.'
    -Don Mayer of SmallDog.com , an apple reseller in his newletter 
Kibbles&Bytes #241 Please try to address the real issues and 
stay away from the politics, we have not benefitted by microsoft 
monopoly.
    Jocelyn & Allan Weissman
    7512 Westfield Drive
    Bethesda, MD 20817




MTC-00003494

From: Patrick McAvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft must be stopped
    They have destroyed almost every competitor and they are moving 
into new markets. They have bought every market they own. America 
should not allow this economic terrorism to continue.
    Patrick McAvey
    Apple Solution Expert
    314-862-1312
    Insanely Great Consulting
    University City, MO
    http://www.insanelygreat.net
    patrick@insanelygreat.net




MTC-00003495

From: Craig L. Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From Robert X. Cringely
    :
    The proposed Microsoft settlement with the Department of Justice 
has been out for several days, and there has been more than enough 
ink used to say that it is a sweetheart deal for Microsoft. The DOJ 
wants to get on to more important duties like confiscating nail 
clippers at airports, so the deal looks good to them. But to those 
of us who got our legal education from old episodes of `Law 
and Order,' the deal stinks. How does it restore competition? 
What does it do for those hundreds of competitors who are no longer 
even in business because of Microsoft`s monopolistic tactics? Well, 
those outfits_if they exist and if they can find the money to 
do so_can file civil suits. But most of them won`t. I would 
like to see a class action lawsuit against Microsoft.
    What the settlement seems to do is prohibit Microsoft from 
breaking the law IN THIS SPECIFIC WAY for a period of five years. 
Imagine a murderer who shot his victims being enjoined for five 
years from using a gun, but still being allowed to carry a knife. So 
the best use of this space this week, given all the other pundits 
who have already criticized the settlement, is for me to throw out 
some ideas about why Microsoft went for it, and how their behavior 
will change as a result. It is important to understand here that 
Microsoft management does not feel the slightest bit of guilt. They 
are, as they have explained over and over again, just trying to 
survive in a brutally competitive industry, one in which they could 
go from winner to loser in a heartbeat. The fact that Microsoft 
makes in excess of 90 percent of the profit of the entire software 
industry, well that`s just the happy result of a lot of hard work. 
Pay no mind to that $36 billion they have in the bank. And since 
Microsoft doesn`t feel guilty, their motivation in agreeing to this 
settlement is just to get on with business. This is a very important 
fact to keep in mind when trying to understand the event. This isn`t 
Microsoft being caught and punished, it is Microsoft finding a path 
back to business as usual, which is to say back to the very kind of 
practices that got them here. Microsoft, confident in its innate 
cleverness, is willing to give up certain old monopolistic behaviors 
because there are new monopolistic behaviors now available to 
replace them.
    Microsoft has to open-up certain Windows communication APIs to 
other developers, but there is no restriction at all on the addition 
of new APIs. So expect a LOT of new APIs, many of which will do 
nothing at all except confuse competitors. There is nothing in the 
agreement that says Microsoft has to tell anyone which APIs it 
really intends to use. So just like interpreted software is 
obfuscated to hinder would-be copiers, expect Microsoft to obfuscate 
Windows, itself.
    Microsoft has to allow third-party middleware, but a glaring 
loophole was left for Microsoft, simply to redefine code as not 
being middleware. If they stop distributing code separately and draw 
it into Windows, well as I read the proposed settlement, middleware 
stops being middleware after 12 months. So if something new comes up 
(all the old middleware is explicitly defined) Microsoft can 
integrate it and screw the opposition one year after they stop 
distributing it separately.
    These loopholes are nice, but they don`t amount to the kind of 
leverage Microsoft would want to have before signing away any 
rights. Bill Gates would want to believe that he has a new and 
completely unfettered weapon so powerful that it makes some of the 
older weapons completely unnecessary. He has found that weapon in 
.NET.
    But hey, .NET isn`t even successful yet, right? It might be a 
big flop. Wrong. Those who think there is any way that .NET won`t be 
universally deployed are ignoring Microsoft`s 90 percent operating 
system market share. Whether people like .NET or not, they`ll get it 
as old computers are replaced with new ones. Within three years .NET 
will be everywhere whether customers actually use it or not. And 
that ubiquity, rather than commercial success, is what is important 
to Microsoft.
    Here is the deal. .NET is essentially a giant system for 
tracking user behavior and, as such, will become Microsoft`s most 
valuable tactical tool. It is a system for tracking use of services, 
and the data from that tracking is available only to Microsoft.
    .NET is an integral part of Windows` communication system with 
all calls going through it. This will allow Microsoft (and only 
Microsoft) to track the most frequently placed calls. If the calls 
are going to a third-party software package, Microsoft will know 
about it. This information is crucial. With it, Microsoft can know 
which third-party products to ignore and which to destroy. With this 
information, Microsoft can develop its own add-in packages and 
integrate them into the .NET framework, thus eliminating the third-
party provider. A year later, as explained above, the problem is 
solved.
    Alternately, Microsoft could use the information (this .NET-
generated market

[[Page 24298]]

research that Microsoft gets for free and nobody else gets at all) 
to change Windows to do service discovery giving an automatic 
priority to Microsoft`s middleware. The advantage here is in giving 
the appearance of openness without actually being open.
    These possible behaviors are not in any way proscribed by the 
proposed settlement with the DOJ, yet they virtually guarantee a 
continuation of Microsoft`s monopoly on applications and services as 
long as Microsoft has an operating system monopoly. When Microsoft 
talks about `innovation,' this is what they mean. 
Nothing is going to change. It is easy to criticize, but for a 
change, there is actually something that you and I can do about this 
problem. Under the Tunney Act, the court has to open a 60-day period 
for public comment before any settlement can become final. This will 
happen after the settlement is entered in the Federal Register and 
will probably involve the court establishing a web site. This will 
be your chance to say what you think should happen in the case (look 
in the `I Like It' links for further information). My 
preferred outcome is still that Microsoft be forced to sell its 
language business, and the proceeds of that sale be distributed to 
registered users of Microsoft products. You might think to suggest 
that in your comments to the court.
    Craig L. Stevenson
    




MTC-00003496

From: PCtech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    DOJ
    If you look at Windows XP, it is obvious that Microsoft is 
making a fool out of the Justice Department! XP is an example of how 
big business can `out wait' any oversight and make money 
doing it!
    Windows XP has no ability to run older programs (no DOS 
extensions) nor co-exist with LINUX or any other operating system. 
If you want to run any Windows program using XP, all other operating 
systems must go away.
    I think the solution to the matter is to remove all software 
that is written by a company that is held in contempt from the 
Governments `buy' list. Any documents distributed 
electronically should not be distributed using that companies 
software. Documents should be distributed using RTF format or a GNU 
format. RTF format is universally accepted and does not rely on 
proprietary software to be read. The Federal Government is 
encouraging Microsoft to continue it`s practices by encouraging 
others to purchase Microsoft software.
    Thanks and God bless
    Frank Nevis
    11733 Castle Court
    Dublin, CA 94568-2701332
    nettech@pcmagic.net
    CC:feedback@redhat.com@inetgw




MTC-00003497

From: Tosh Cooey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    As an American and a Canadian I am particularly fortunate to 
live in a time of great prosperity and opportunity. This has all 
been brought to us by our system of democratic capitalism, which 
rewards hard work and ingenuity.
    Karl Marx, a great philosopher, once said (paraphrased) 
`capitalism left to it`s own devices tends towards 
monopoly', which like communism is the antithesis of our great 
system of democratic capitalism. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
having a monopoly (not a crime in itself) and abusing it`s monopoly 
power. For this it should be punished, not slapped on the wrist. 
Many of the proposed settlements in the case, both the DOJ and 
class-actions, are inconsistent with a message of punishment. As a 
resolution to the class-action suits, Microsoft proposes giving away 
$1 billion of computers to schools, with an over-inflated value of 
it`s software attached to this. Schools are a strong market for 
competitors of Microsoft so it`s hard to see how this is a 
punishment. In the DOJ case against Microsoft part of the settlement 
says:
    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, 
...'
    Products like Linux and Apache are some of the fiercest 
competitors to Microsoft. These products are made up of groups of 
far-flung individuals, not companies or businesses. So when the 
language of the settlement helps entrench Microsoft against it`s 
strongest competitors, it`s hard to see how this proposed settlement 
will help the competitive landscape which Microsoft has so abused in 
the past.
    It would be very easy to be cynical and note that Microsoft is 
one of the wealthiest entities in the world, and they are just 
buying their way out of punishment (some would say being punished 
into a stronger market position) but most people have faith in the 
political and social/economic system which sees us where we are, but 
if our system can`t rectify such an obvious breach of economic order 
then were does that leave us?
    Please do not slap Microsoft on the wrist, competition is what 
makes us great, and for the people, you and I and everyone else, 
there is NO such thing as too much competition in the marketplace.
    Thank-you for making this opportunity to express myself 
available.
    McIntosh Cooey
    Twelve Hundred Group
    http://www.1200group.com/




MTC-00003498

From: E. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit the following comments:
    Please alter the section of the judgement to include not-for-
profit organizations.
    1. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. But Microsoft`s biggest competitors are Linux, an operating 
system, and Apache, an integral part of the Internet. Both these 
products are being produced by not-for-profit organizations. Yet 
not-for-profit organizations have no rights at all under the 
proposed settlement. It is as though they don`t even exist. As such 
with the final judgement as proposed, Microsoft will be in a 
position to destroy them.
    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, 
...' In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these 
laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free products 
could become a major force in any industry would have seemed insane.
    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. The settlement gives Microsoft the 
right to effectively kill these products. Concerning disclosure of 
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft 
`middleware.' Microsoft discloses to Independent 
Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), 
Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), 
and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed 
to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in 
the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we find 
the definitions specify commercial concerns only.
    2. Regarding the three-member committee stationed at Microsoft 
to make sure the DOJ deal is enforced.
    Steve Satchell would be an ideal member of this committee. 
Active with computers for 30+ years, Mr. Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product. reviews, he also knows the 
commercial side of the industry.
    Respectfully submitted
    Emerald Jones
    Newbury Park, CA




MTC-00003499

FROM: rreno
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 12/8/01 1:41pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
Robert L. Reno
11725 Laurelview Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45249
February 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice

[[Page 24299]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Thank you for working to negotiate the antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft. I am writing to express my support of this agreement and 
appreciation for your continued efforts to finalize this case. The 
general public, including many many businesses and myself, have 
benefited far more from Microsoft`s substantial innovations than any 
minor damage we may have suffered due to alleged errors they may 
have made in trying to protect the essence of their proprietary 
products and their capability to innovate.
    It`s time we let them get on with the business of producing much 
needed new innovations that will help our country improve 
productivity and move our economy forward again. We should praise 
Microsoft for the huge contribution their products have made to our 
country`s productivity and encourage them to develop new more 
powerful tools. It is not in our best interest for Microsoft to 
expend any more of their resources on litigation, State or Federal. 
If any errors in business practices were substantiated beyond all 
reasonable doubt, let them know what they were, expect them to make 
reasonable changes that don`t deter their capability to innovate, 
and follow-up in a reasonable and appropriate manner. If such 
changes may hinder innovation, our laws both Federal and State need 
to be changed to avoid the potential for this result.
    Please help make sure that myself and millions of other computer 
users will continue to benefit from the use of Microsoft`s products 
and their capability to achieve innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Reno
    513/489-1815




MTC-00003500

From: George Risch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in regards to the recent settlement proposed 
between the US Government and Microsoft of Redmond, WA. As I 
understand the matter, the current settlement does not include any 
provisions regulation of future access to Microsoft`s API calls or 
descriptions of how the internals of its operating system. This is 
unfortunate, because Microsoft has been found guilty of being a 
monopoly and should be required to share these specifications in a 
free and open way.
    In my work and the products produced at the company I work for, 
not including these specifications could harm future revenue based 
on our own independent work by forcing us to pay monopolistic tolls 
required to gain access to these specifications. Its is much like a 
system in which a train manufacture is not allowed to know the 
spacing of the tracks without paying an arbitrarily set fee charge 
by a monopolistic railroad. We know how to build the trains very 
well, but don?t know if they will fit on the tracks.
    This is especially relevant in Microsoft`s case because they can 
change, at a virtual whim, a little part of its operating system 
code to make all of our products inoperable.
    Please consider adding that Microsoft publish its API calls and 
descriptions of its OS internals in the settlement, even though it 
may prolong the effort to close this matter. Thank you for your 
time.
    Best Regards,
    George Risch




MTC-00003501

From: William Hensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am not in favor of this settlement it gives Microsoft more 
power rather than less power. By letting them dictate their own 
terms in this settlement. It`s not even a slap on the wrist. It 
gives them a means of getting their software into the hands of the 
next generation at almost no cost to Microsoft. It results in what 
is nothing more than free advertising for them. their proposed value 
of their software is way understated. There are some development 
costs but turning out copies of software is relatively cheap. I 
would be surprised to find their actual costs to be more than One 
Million dollars, not even close to Five Hundred Million. Break them 
up! Fine Gates 5 billion and put him in prison for a few years to 
think about what he has done wrong.
    William Hensley




MTC-00003502

From: jquinnella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:20pm
    I believe that many people are forgetting about what the 
products & services of Microsoft have done for the country and 
the world. Microsoft has made it much easier for all of us to lead 
our lives and communicate with one another because of their business 
and residential software services. (why do you think the U.S. is 
such an advanced nation) The founding of Microsoft certainly did not 
hurt this evolution.
    Please remember....everyone loves an American 
success story!!! Just like Wal-Mart.
     Regards, J.R. Quincy Omaha, NE USA




MTC-00003503

From: Geoff King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I do not agree with this microsoft settlement. They were (and 
still are) a monopoly that abused their power. This settlement was a 
waste of time and money for all the years of hard work the US and 
states have done.
    I vividly remember all the troubles with netscape when IE was 
first coming out. Microsoft should make operating systems, that run 
theirs and other software. But they should not be allowed an unfair 
advantage in controlling which software can be run and how it works, 
beyond the operating system, or which formats are `standard`.
    Netscape IE
    Wordperfect Office
    MP3,Realmedia Windows Media (WMA)
    I`m sure there are others.
    Just Venting,
    Geoff King
    ps. found this link on the redhat website.




MTC-00003504

From: Faisal Yousuf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:22pm
Subject: Fairness is All I ask of you!
    Hello to the employees of the Department of JUSTICE,
    When I got the news that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, I 
felt such a relief. I said to myself that there is somebody with 
integrity and common sense in the DOJ who believes in such things as 
cunsumer protection and a free market. Then I got this horrible news 
about a so called settlement with Microsoft which is a mockery of 
everything that justice stands for. The guilty shuld be punished 
that`s justice, plain and simple.
    This so called settelment with Microsoft, lets the guilty off 
with a slap on the rest and let`s him resume exactly what he has 
been doing before the DOJ`s `justice' was handed down to 
them.
    You want to know what I consider justice: the moment that I walk 
into a computer store everywhere in the US and the world to buy a 
PC, and the store clerk asks me: What kind of Operating System I 
want be loaded on my new PC, or whether I want it to be blank so 
that I can take it home and load whatever I want on it? At that 
precise moment, the DOJ whould have fulfilled justice. Anything 
else, is farce.
    Faisal M Yousuf
    Jeddah, Saudi Arabia




MTC-00003505

From: Joshua E Reeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am aware that the proposed settlement gives Microsoft a lot of 
power with regard to releasing API`s, etc. to freeware and open 
source groups. This is incredibly counter-productive, as the only 
group that has as much development support as Microsoft is the 
aforementioned open-source movement.
    Specifically, I am referring to: Section III(J)(2) Section 
III(D)
    Thank you for your time.
    Josh




MTC-00003506

From: Austin Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting the following for 
consideration:
    I do not claim to be a judicial wizard or that I understand all 
the requirements of submitting a letter like this. However, it is my 
hope the courts forgive my ignorance in this area and allow me to 
express my views and accept them in the good faith I offer them.
    To provide the quick answer, let me say I approve of the 
proposed settlement between the DoJ, the approving State Attorney 
Generals, and Microsoft Corporation. With

[[Page 24300]]

that said I would like to express my reasoning behind this:
    Microsoft has been found guilty of specific violations of the 
law and as such should face the consequences of their acts. However, 
I believe any ?punishment? should fit the ?crime?, and I believe the 
proposed remedies do this very nicely.
    If I understand all that I have read on the subject, Microsoft`s 
biggest problem is in how they conducted business with OEMs. 
(Original Equipment Manufactures) It would make sense that this is 
the area of behavior that should be addressed, restricted, and 
monitored. While a small minority of people would like to see 
additional restrictions and/or restructuring of Microsoft, I believe 
doing so would not be in the best interest of the average consumer.
    I have worked with PC users on a daily basis for about 20 years 
and have had one point driven home time after time. ?The key to 
consumer satisfaction is making the PC simple to use.? The concept 
that breaking the Windows Operating System in to multiple components 
will somehow make the PC easier to use is just plain wrong. In my 
experience, users want a PC they can set-up, turn on, and 
immediately be productive with.
    Another consideration for the average user is one of support. As 
I said, I make a living helping people with their PCs. With 
Microsoft Windows I have a `known' basis to work from. I 
can count on a number of things being in place and I know their 
structure. This allows me to quickly resolve any problems the user 
may have. If I, as a support person, am required to learn and deal 
with what could be hundreds of possible configurations, I would have 
no choice but to increase the price of my services, and in all 
likelihood, spend considerable more time resolving the user`s 
problems. This will obviously be reflected in the users cost of 
ownership.
    It is unfortunate that the DoJ and the courts have been placed 
into the current situation, but the reality is that it was 
necessary. With that said, my feelings on the matter are that the 
government must show extreme caution to go no further than is 
absolutely necessary. The PC industry is still in its infancy and 
market forces are just beginning to shape it. The Linux Operating 
System is becoming more and more popular, large corporations other 
than Microsoft are developing standards for the Internet, and there 
is serious competition in just about every conceivable area of PC 
use.
    I pray the court consider the users of PCs and not just 
Microsoft`s competitor`s complaints. Regardless of which company or 
corporation ?wins? the race to market share, ultimately it is the 
user`s needs that must be met. And it is for these users`s I ask 
that the current proposed settlement be accepted and enforced.
    Sincerely,
    Austin Myers
    RR 1 Box ?63?
    Denver, Mo.




MTC-00003507

From: RONJOYCE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:34pm
Subject: Comment
    WHY DON`T YOU GUYS, AND THE STATES, GET OFF YOUR PATHETIC 
PURSUIT OF THIS COMPANY?
    SURELY YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO.
    I, LIKE MANY OTHERS I INTERFACE WITH, ARE VERY MUCH FED UP WITH 
YOUR ATTITUDES TOWARD AN AMERICAN ICON AND SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. SURE 
IS NOT TEACHING OUR YOUNGER GENERATION ANY POSITIVE BUSINESS IDEAS. 
I WOULD SUGGEST STOP MAKING DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT 
EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT A COMPUTER OR NIC CARD IS AND TELL THEM TO GO 
ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS, WHILE YOU GO ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
    GET A LIFE, GET OFF MICROSOFT!
    Ron Raney




MTC-00003508

From: RONJOYCE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 2:43pm
Subject: ANOTHER COMMENT
    AS FAR AS ALL THE CRITICS LINING UP TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE 
CURRENT SETTLEMENT, DON`T YOU THINK THEY ARE USING THIS AS A WAY TO 
IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN TYPE OF MONOPOLY, JUST BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTS 
ARE INFERIOR TO MICROSOFT`S?
    WHEN CEO`s STOOP SO LOW AS TO USE CRUMBS TO GET THE LAW ON THEIR 
SIDE, IT IS TIME TO HANG UP THE LEGAL HAT! THEY TOO SHOULD BE TOLD 
TO GO HOME AND QUIT WHINING!!!! THEY SHOULD CREATE A BETTER, OR MORE 
PRODUCTIVE PRODUCT AND THEY TOO WILL SUCCEED.
    KEEP THE COMPETITION THE WAY IT IS WITH MICROSOFT LEADING THE 
PACK. WE WILL ALL BE BETTER OFF IN THE FUTURE!
    Ron Raney




MTC-00003509

From: Chuck Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:11pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I am writing you to express my opinion on the recent DOJ 
settlement with Microsoft on the antitrust trial.
    I short, I strongly feel that the agreement does not go far 
enough in punishing Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices, 
nor limits them in the future in following these practices. 
Microsoft`s present behavior belies what is ahead for the computer 
industry under a weak agreement:
    _Microsoft continues to leverage its advantage over 
competitors by not including Java in its release of the latest 
Internet Explorer shipped with Windows XP. Likewise, Microsoft 
bundles their Media player, while shutting out RealAudio`s player 
(similar to the practices earlier of bundling Internet Explorer with 
Windows, but not Netscape).
    _Microsoft is effectively pressuring corporate customers 
to perform upgrades and purchase subscriptions and support under a 
deadline. After the deadline, new plans and prices will go into 
effect, although it is vague as to what those conditions will be.
    _Microsoft has declared war on open source software, such 
as the Linux operating system, calling it un-American. There is even 
concern in the open-source community that Microsoft may start trying 
to limit the growth of open source software through software patents 
and other legal mechanisms.
    _Some of Microsoft`s licensing agreements go so far as to 
limit free speech, compelling the customer not to make remarks that 
derogatory or critical of Microsoft.
    _The agreement to view Microsoft source code, under the 
control and watchful eyes of Microsoft, is a minimal concession and 
provides little or no advantage to vendors in developing software to 
run on Microsoft platforms. The fact is that Microsoft product teams 
will have FULL access to source code, as well as being privy to 
future enhancements to their operating system. I doubt they will 
give the same access to competitors.
    _Microsoft continues to branch out into new markets and 
initiatives, including PDA`s, Web services, game systems, set-top 
boxes. In typical Microsoft fashion, these systems are closed 
source, compete with industry standards, and don`t interoperate well 
with other systems. The one main exception is Microsoft`s embracing 
XML with their .NET initiative, but even .NET is a closed system.
    _Microsoft`s latest version of Windows, XP, practically 
forces the customer to register with Passport, an on-line 
identification service, providing personal information that will 
reside on Microsoft servers. Microsoft will own this data, along 
with the temptation to sell or otherwise abuse this privilege. Of 
course, this is in direct competition with other similar, more open 
mechanisms of storing user identities.
    _Even with the current agreement, Microsoft does not admit 
to their guilt, and does not acknowledge its monopoly status, even 
though this is the ruling.
    These are just a few examples that come to mind. I`ve read many 
more in the industry press.
    Under normal circumstances, where there are several players in 
the market, Microsoft has every right to compete in a vigorous 
manner. But these are not normal circumstances. Microsoft is one of 
the largest corporations in the world, and the largest software 
vendor. Microsoft holds over 90% of the desktop computer market. 
Microsoft Office products have such a high penetration in the 
corporate market that Microsoft Word and Outlook are the defacto 
word processing and email programs of corporate America.
    When Microsoft says jump, these customers have little recourse 
but to say `How high?'.
    This situation is not unlike 20 years ago, when IBM held 
dominance over the mainframe computer industry. It was not until 
they were pressured by the DOJ, and the PC came along, that 
competition opened up and we started a long technology boom, which 
led to more innovation, including the Internet.

[[Page 24301]]

    Prior to this, we had closed, proprietary systems which did not 
interconnect well. If IBM had maintained its hegemony over systems 
and networking, it is doubtful that we would have seen anything like 
the Internet. I see the same situation with Microsoft`s dominance of 
the desktop_as long as their code and data formats are secret, 
and they dominate the marketplace, it will be difficult for 
innovators to come up with the next `Internet.'
    To give you additional perspective on where I`m coming from, I`m 
writing this email on a Windows 98 system, using Microsoft Outlook. 
I typically use Microsoft products for my email, word processing 
(Word), financial planning (Excel and Money). They are fine 
products. However, I also use Linux, Netscape, StarOffice, Java and 
other systems and applications. I have no problem with using 
Microsoft products. But I do have a problem where one vendor has 
such dominance in so many areas of computing as to stifle innovation 
that a truly competitive marketplace would bring. Microsoft claims 
to be a champion of innovation, yet oppose it in the open-source 
community and quash it from their competitors.
    Personally, I feel the `remedies' do not go far 
enough in leveling the playing field, and Microsoft has been given 
carte blanche to continue in their arrogant, aggressive fashion. We 
will see Microsoft in court in the future, I fear. But what I fear 
more are the ideas and innovative products that will be stifled or 
never see the light of day until that next day in court arrives.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Hill
    President
    Hill Systems Consulting, Inc.
    7208 Fairford Place
    Tampa, FL 33634




MTC-00003510

From: Rodman Brett
To: Microsoft ATR,quevreaux@sugar-land.oilfield.slb.co...
Date: 12/8/01 3:17pm
Subject: MicroSoft, Monopolies, and a Metaphor December 6, 2001
From: Brett A. Rodman
Diogenes Unlimited Political Consulting temp address
102 Reid Road
West Columbia, TX 77486
To: The Honorable Jim Miller
The Attorney General of Iowa
Subj: Microsoft, Monoplies, and a Metaphor
cc: The Securities and Exchange Commission
Attorneys` General CA, DC, MA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MN, UT, WV
The Securities and Exchange Commission
The European Union
    Mr. Miller,
    I would like to comend your state on its decision to continue 
with the anti-trust case against MicroSoft. It is unfortunate, but 
as it stands Mr. Gates has been able to amass the great amount of 
wealth that he has, and keep this wealth as a result of the judicial 
community`s, and the public`s widespread ignorance concerning 
computers, and the internet, and more than this, how it is that laws 
governing the contracts, public welfare, and commerce of day to day 
business apply on the internet.
    I have done extensive studies in this area over the last year, 
most specifically how Bill of Rights protections, most specifically 
how political and speech rights apply on the internet. This being 
the case, I would like to take a crack at providing a metaphor for 
how Mr. Gate`s Monopoly over the `Air Space' in Cyber-
World is detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The 
Internet is a Super Highway. Like any other road, it is the back-
bone and life blood of commerce, industry, and free enterprise. This 
is much the same as the Rail System in America was in the 19th 
Century and the Highways projects of The New Deal were in the early 
twentieth Century.
    The MicroSoft Corporation, and Bill Gates, have in fact made it 
so that to even get on the highway of commerce you have to pay them. 
Most who are not astute as to computers do not understand this. In 
fact as it currently stands, it is nearly impossible to find a 
computer system, or operating server that is accessible for public, 
and or private computers, without having to access and utilize the 
Windows Operating System.
    Mr. Gates` defense is that you should not penalize success. That 
invented this system for the most part and therefore I am justified 
in establishing an operating monopoly because of this. Well then, I 
suppose that the person who invented concrete should be given money 
everytime a new road is paved, a bridge built, or driveway poured.
    In fact, as this metaphor applies to the Super-Highway of 
Commerce, imagine this. Imagine that the company that invented 
concrete was allowed to take fees for everytime you used the road-
ways. So the person that invented concrete setup a toll-booth at the 
end of every American driveway, established and erected by the 
government so that they could get some tax money. Every time you 
wanted to pull your car out of the driveway, you had to pay a toll 
to the man who invented concrete and the government toll booth tax 
collectors.
    Well eventually, one car owner became mad about this and sued. 
And said that the man that invented concrete, and the government 
toll collectors could not do this, that it was a monopoly of the 
roads and a violation of their rights. Unfortunately, because people 
liked driving their cars on the roads, the man who had invented 
concrete had become the richest man in the world. He was able to buy 
and sell the justice system for the greatest part, make backroom 
political deals, and have political campaigns bought and sold so 
that he would be able to keep hold of this profitable monopoly. So 
instead of breaking up the monopoly, the government made a deal with 
the company that made the toll booths at the end of driveways (The 
Sun Microsystems Java systems) that they would split the money from 
the monopoly with each other, and that in effect would serve as 
justice.
    Then the man who invented concrete, and the toll booth makers, 
now happy with themselves, went and promised to pay all of the legal 
fees of the people who did not like the deal, and offered more 
inducements to get anyone else to drop the matter entirely.
    This was because the man who invented concrete understood that 
it was better to have to share all of the monopoly money with one 
other person, than allow the government to engage in a takings act 
of the patent for the common welfare, with due compensation being 
given to the concrete maker under the IV Amendment.
    I do hope that you understand the metaphor, and will use it in 
calling other Attorney`s General around the United States of America 
to convince them that in fact, the metaphor above is most certainly 
what the Microsoft Monoply case represents, and is a violation of 
the Wagner and Sherman Anti-Trust Acts.
    I look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter.
    Very Truly Yours, I am,
    Brett A. Rodman
Subject: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
To: brandan.sullivan@ williamsandconnolly.com, 
drogers@teamsc.com, sboyd@carolinacapital.net, 
kthomas@teamsc.com, microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov, 
sjeantet@macdom.com, webmaster@microsoft.aynrand.org, 
jhendren@seatletimes.com, 
attorney.general@state.mn.us, 
webmaster@ago.state.ma.us, uag@att.state.ut.us, 
attorney.general@ppo. state.ct.us, ag@oag.state.fl.us, 
awhall@agmail.ag.state.ia.us, webteam@ag.state.ia.us, 
luparker@news.kabb.com, sandersa@cofc.edu, 
houghs@cofc.edu, cabotj@cofc.edu
From: Rodman Brett 
Date: 20 Nov 2001 12:06:51 PST
November 20, 2001
From: Brett Anthony Rodman
Diogenes Unlimited
Political Consulting
temp address
1009 11th Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
832-496-1925
To: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 450 Fifth Street 
Washington, DC 20549
202-942-7040
Subj: MicroSoft and Movie Studio Investments
Ref: (a) Ltr to Brett A. Rodman dtd February 18, 2000 from the SC 
Department of Commerce
cc: The South Carolina Legislature
The Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Film Office of South Carolina
The SC Economic Development Authority
The South Carolina Department of Commerce
The Apple Corporation
The MicroSoft Defense Site
The Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division
Offices of the Attorney General SC, CA, CT, FL, IA, KS, MA, MN, UT, 
WV
International Anti-Trust Agencies
Brendan Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Williams & Connoly
The College of Charleston

[[Page 24302]]

    EC,
    My name is Brett Anthony Rodman, I run a small political and 
legal consulting entrepreneurial enterprise. I am interested in the 
MicroSoft Case, but have little time to research the issue right 
now.
    However, I have a `hunch' that I was hoping your 
agency and the cc: line addresses might be interested in undertaking 
duedilligence concerning its validity. For, if it is true it speaks 
to the business practices of MicroSoft, not only in the area of 
Information Technology, but its investments in other areas of the 
economy. It concerns the `intellectual property rights' 
to offer an IPO, and garner `venture capital' for the 
Construction of a Movie Studio in the State of South Carolina.
    In February of 2000, I authored, and delivered a hand-written 
copy of a 30-year Economic Redevelopment plan for the State of South 
Carolina. The State of South Carolina acknowledged receipt of this 
plan, which included the construction of a `movie 
studio' with Reference (a). I contend for the record, that my 
former employeers, Practical Holdings Limited of 206 Sak`s Fifth 
Avenue Building, and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery of 275 King 
Street Charleston, SC did conspire, to defraud me of the rights to 
this `intellectual property' through threats, 
intimidation, bribery, and eventually a `murder attempt' 
in front of St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, LA resulting 
thereof, for their own pecuniary, fiduciary, and economic benefit. I 
originally made this contention, and my desire to see the matter 
investigated to the United States Secret Service Field Office and 
Special Agent Kenny. At the time of the Field Interview, Special 
Agent Kenny mentioned that he did not feel that the American 
Government could investigate pertinent to 10th and 11th Amendment 
concerns. The same behavior that was exhibited in Charleston, SC, 
has now continued through three other state jurisdictions. The 
States of Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, and even to a lesser degree 
the District of Columbia. Throughout the breadth of this three year 
hate crime, and I would contend human rights abuse I have kept the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation through e-mail, and the United 
States Secret Service through e-mail and interviews, updated on the 
progress of these individuals and their criminal behavior. 
Unfortuantely, the coconspirators at Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery 
have extensive connections throught the nation`s capital and getting 
any type of investigation initiated has been difficult. You can 
contact the Ned Twining, formerly one of the largest shareholders of 
Exxon Oil for details on the behavior of his investment at Zebo`s 
Restaraunt and Brewery.
    This brings me to the possible involvment of the MicorSoft 
Corporation. As everyone in the financial world is well aware, all 
corporations have people on the street, as information represents 
money. Microsoft obviously, as they have more money have more people 
on the street. I contend for the record that the Co-conspirators to 
defraud me of my property did in fact approach the Microsoft 
Corporation for Deveolpment money to investigate the possiblity of 
the construction of a movie studio in South Carolina.
    In fact, I contend for the record, that my employment by Debra 
Rosen, Tony Stroupe, and Mark Barhyte at Practical Holdings Limited, 
and Zebo`s Restaraunt and Brewery was nothing more than a 
duedilligence effort to gather enough information to be able to 
commit identity fraud, so as to garner investment capital from 
sources banking in the Bank of Japan Monetary System. I have made 
this contention, and sent documentation to the Embassy of Japan, and 
the Consulate of Japan in Houston to enummerate these concerns.
    Moreover, Practical Holdings Limited was working on a 
Interactive Museum Project with the Gates Foundation in Charleston, 
SC. I contend that this is the point in time where, `money to 
be put on the street' was garnered as, `investigative 
capital' or plans `formulation money. This money was 
then used to intimidate, bribe, buy off justice officials and police 
officers, and eventually have me stabbed in the streets of New 
Orleans. I feel that if the MicroSoft Corporation offered money for 
this project, or funneled money to his people in the street, through 
quasi-jobs (i.e. payments for doing nothing), Mr. Gates was aware of 
what the money was being utilized for, approved of this, and in fact 
established a high tech concentration camp, a hate-crime, and a 
human rights abuse for his own amusement. Of course assuming that 
he, as the richest man in the world could just buy the problem away 
later.
    I do sincerely hope that you will look into this matter, and 
contact the aforementioned individuals. As it is my contention that 
if Mr. Gates was involved he is subject to the provisions of USC 
Title 18 Section 96, and forfeitures contained therein, to the 
Treasury Department of the United States of America.
    The international community and economic police agencies can 
contact any foreign students who attended the College of Charleston 
from 1997 to 2000, to ask them what they might know about any of 
this. A good place to start with any duedilligence would be 139 
Calhoun Street, the Trio Club.
    In earnest, I am,
    Brett A. Rodman
    By the way, one other person you can contact is Professor 
Bjerken of the College of Charleston Philosophy Department. I took a 
Chinese and Japanese Religions Class from him. There was a girl (red 
head) named Katy who sat next to me in class. One day she walked by 
me, and condescendingly muttered under her breath at me, 
`you`re taking on Microsoft'.
    Apparently, MicroSoft has purchased the American Government and 
Legal System.




MTC-00003511

From: Ryan Esty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:19pm
Subject: remedies for Microsoft
    Lots of people in the open source community say that if the goal 
of the MS vs DOJ is to increase competition and give people more 
choices then there are two things that need to happen. One of the 
things is to force Microsoft to document and open their file 
formats, communication apis, and windows apis. With out these apis 
and file formats open then everyone that tries to write something to 
be compatible with microsoft windows or microsoft applications the 
programmer(s) will always have to guess and might be locked out if 
Microsoft changes the apis. The other thing that needs to change is 
ammending the DMCA so it is legal to reverse engineer such 
protocols. Without this then it doesn't matter what 
restrictions are put on microsoft, they will just use this law to 
sue everyone into oblivian much like the mpaa is doing to people 
with decss.
    I hope this helps
    Ryan Esty
    CC:attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inetgw




MTC-00003512

From: Michael Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very concerned about the settlement the government is 
offering to Microsoft. I see many loopholes in it and I would like 
to see it changed.
    Many of the loopholes that I am deeply concerned about are 
discussed in Robert X Cringley`s column which is available here: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html 
_michael




MTC-00003513

From: Portland, Oregon TCF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 3:35pm
Subject: What a farce!
    After all the hope you created by going after Micro$oft you sure 
wimped out with this `settlement'. You might as well 
have told Little Billy to continue as planned. I really like the 
option provided by Red Hat. Let Bill fund the hardware and allow 
open source software to be used!
    John Bruce, Webmaster
    Portland Oregon Chapter
    The Compassionate Friends
    pdxtcf@teleport.com
    www.portlandtcf.org




MTC-00003514

From: Mark Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:02pm
Subject: Punish don`t reward Microsoft
    Microsoft should be split into 4 corporations.
    (1) Business suite and productivity software.
    (2) Network Operating Systems and Operating Systems.
    (3) Internet Software.
    (4) Programming Software.
    Nothing less will end their monopoly and outright arrogance. Is 
the government afraid of Bill Gates?
    Mark Compton




MTC-00003515

From: David McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    It would appear that the proposed Microsoft settlement gives no 
rights whatsoever to non-profit entities (see section

[[Page 24303]]

III(J)(2), section III(D)). This is a problem, because Microsoft`s 
greatest competitor is not a for-profit organization. It`s free 
software. There is much in this market which Microsoft has in the 
past and can in the future hurt or even kill, which the settlement 
provides no protection for.
    David McCabe
    `'finger david@12.225.145.151' for PGP 
key.
    Wrfhf ybirf lbh!




MTC-00003516

From: Dan Dickerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in response to the request for public comment on 
the recent Microsoft anti-trust settlement, to express my 
disapproval of one of the aspects of the proposed settlement. Though 
this issue has been raised by other groups before, I am also 
proposing a possible compromise of this settlement which would be 
more generally acceptable.
    Specifically, the portion of the settlement by which Microsoft 
will donate computers and software to educational institutions is a 
minor cost to MS, while allowing them to essentially advertise their 
own products to thousands of schoolkids and educators. This allows 
them advertising space, and gets their foot-in-the-door of the 
education market, a longstanding stronghold of their OS competitor 
Apple Computer, and a growing stronghold with Linux, under the guise 
of actually penalising Microsoft in some way.
    I would suggest that if Microsoft were sincere in their will to 
better the educational system through computer hardware and software 
donations, they should not be allowed to present their own products 
as a way to fulfill that donation. Such a donation sould only be 
considered a sincere and worthy part of a settlement if Microsoft 
were to pay the costs of donating strictly non-Microsoft products, 
such as those which run Linux and MacOS, and with a prohibition that 
these computers not be allowed to run MS software or for the 
Microsoft name or logo to appear anywhere on these products.
    Further, for any such donation to be of true use to a school, 
there will be a need for ongoing computer support, configuration and 
training. Again, such services should be paid for my Microsoft, but 
should be provided by non-MS service companies which are known for 
their strengths in promoting and servicing these non-Microsoft 
products, so as to prevent MS from evangelizing its own products in 
this environment.
    Dan Dickerman
    Mountain View, CA




MTC-00003517

From: goran@ekeberg.virtualave.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:09pm
Subject: Settlement...
    Dear Sir`s:
    I`ve read a lot of encouraging news about DOJ investigations, 
considerations and upcoming legislation against Microsoft. Now I`m 
sad to say that the effort seems to result in a very watered-down 
result, mostly due to lack of congruen on your side.
    The simple truth is that in this world of technological reserch 
and landwinning discoveries, we just can`t let a single company 
dominate, infiltrate and parasite on the economical strength of the 
western world and further enhance the vast differences between the 
poor and educationally challenged countries and the rest. (Let alone 
the impact of rapid-changing interface paradigms on individuals.)
    If we proceed along this path, we are sooner or later faced with 
a effort of retraining millions of coworkers on the every-other-year 
product/training/certification release whim of one company. An 
effort from which no-one but said company will benefit and that it 
certainly will result in a hampering of free market competition due 
to sheer need of competence control and turnover. Furthermore, this 
effort will provide no actual enhanced technical skills, since the 
base of MS operations is to repackage open and available technology 
in a acceleratingly more complex form, thus seldom providing any 
real operational value.
    Regards:
    Goran Ekeberg




MTC-00003518

From: Dan Alustiza At The Hat/Cap Exchange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The odds of this being read, are slim at best, but this is one 
thing that requires attention. First I would like to state that this 
suit should never have been permitted. I have been a software 
developer for 18 years now, and I remember back to the days before 
Microsoft. Microsoft brought control to a profession that was 
totally out of control. Everyone had their own set of standards, 
which made it next to impossible to build any type of software 
application, in any timely manner. All that Microsoft has done, is 
act like any other healthy company in this country has. Companies 
such as Oracle and Sun, are examples of companies that cannot keep 
up with Microsoft, so what have they done, gone and cried to the 
Government. This is no different than little children crying to the 
teacher, because big Johnny did not give Teddy a piece of the pie.
    The proposed settlement, although costly to institute, would 
enable companies like Oracle to watch over Microsoft`s practices, 
without hindering the growth of the software industry. The 
settlement would also permit the hardware manufacturers the freedom 
they should have to install any operating system, and software 
applications, that they so choose. This is one area which I did 
think Microsoft was out of control. They should never have been 
permitted to force the hardware companies to install the Microsoft 
products. In saying that, I also think the hardware companies CEO`s 
should have had the guts to stand up to Microsoft, on this matter. A 
lawsuit was not needed to fix this problem.
    In closing, when this lawsuit was filed, and brought to court, 
that started the recession, that this country, is currently in. The 
stock market started faltering within a couple of weeks, of the 
court proceedings, and the tech arena started to fail. People, and 
companies started to loose money, and the trickle down effect went 
into full force. As usual, the government placed their hands into an 
area they knew nothing about, and screwed it up. Settle this suit 
now!
    Dan Alustiza




MTC-00003519

From: lesjmc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 4:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    I as a citizen feel that the settlement should be accepted by 
all parties invoved. Due to Microsoft in the past, they broke the 
financial barrier of companies like IBM to where it made it 
financially affordable for the common citizen or person to be able 
to own a PC in their home. The price of their software is very 
competitive with everybody else.
    If we are going to make Microsoft make available software to 
everybody else who wants to attach it to windows or bundle with it, 
then why do we not, for example, make it mandatory for the auto 
industy to let it be available to have a Chevy engine as a option in 
your Ford, or vise versa or a Ford stereo system installed by Chevy, 
in your Chevy.
    All we got here is some state attorneys who are just trying to 
make a name for their themselves for their own personnel gain. They 
do not have the public interest at heart.
    Les McCann




MTC-00003520

From: Gary Cable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:02pm
Subject: DOJ Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Extreme disappointment doesn`t even begin to describe my 
feelings about the, so called, settlement with Microsoft concerning 
the anti-trust case. In my view, it wasn`t a settlement, it was a 
`GET OUT OF JAIL FREE' pass. You can bet that Microsoft 
will continue the same business practices that brought the lawsuit 
to start with, only I fear it will become worse than ever. I`m not 
certain a breakup of Microsoft was the answer, but some sort of 
significant and substantial penalty was certainly in order.
    Some day this lawsuit will have to be repeated and maybe next 
time Microsoft will actually pay for its sins. I do wonder if 
someone in the DOJ is a little richer.....MS was found to be a 
monopoly and went free. Hmmmm. At least MS will not get any more of 
my $$$.
    Regards,
    A very disappointed and dis-believing tax payer.
    Gary Cable
    gcable@texoma.net




MTC-00003521

From: Romica Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:11pm
Subject: microsoft
    Microsoft never intended to hurt its competition.





MTC-00003522

From: donald bisbee

[[Page 24304]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:15pm
Subject: `Microsoft'
    PLEASE DON`T THROW ME INTO THE BRIAR PATCH says Microsoft, and 
so what do you do? Throw them in the briar patch!!!
    When I buy Microsoft`s junky programs I am forced to beg them to 
use it via secret number I need to beg them for.
    CAN YOU IMAGINE A SETTLEMENT MORE FOOLISH THAN FORCING MICROSOFT 
TO ADVERTISE TO SCHOOLKIDS OF ITS MONOPOLY???? YOU CAN HAVE ANYTHING 
YOU WANT AS LONG AS IT IS MICROSOFT!
    Years ago Xerox was forced to sell machines not just rent them 
along with the phone company , and Kodak had to stop forcing 
developing sales with its film. But Microsoft now gets free 
advertising and boosts to its stranglehold monopoly on 
`operating systems'!




MTC-00003523

From: Dave Doucette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement with the Justice Department
    To whom is may concern.
    I would like to express my concern regarding the settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department on a few points. They 
are:
_The current settlement does not require Microsoft to provide 
access to their technology to the Open Source Forum, and restricts 
access to companies. This is very short-sighted since much of the 
alternate-Microsoft solutions are being developed in Open Source. 
Without access to the Microsoft technology, it will restrict 
alternate, competitive solutions.
_Microsoft HAS stifled innovation in the industry. I can 
assure you from my own personal experiences that very little 
innovation directed at the desktop can get venture funding over the 
past five years. The threat is that Microsoft will simply copy the 
technology and walk away with the business, just like what they did 
with Netscape and browsers.
_Personally, I feel that the proposals from the states in 
requiring Microsoft to deliver office on other platforms (including 
Linux) and delivering a `core' version of their 
Operating System makes incredible sense. As you are looking into who 
will sit on the three member committee to review Microsoft, I would 
like to submit myself as a candidate. I`ve been in involved in 
computer technology since 1979. My background includes Hardware, 
software, OS and Networking. I am nearing completion of my MBA at 
Clark University this spring, and I am currently a freelance 
Business and Marketing Consultant. I do feel it is important for a 
company to develop and build an environment for the delivery of 
software and technology for the masses, but it is critical that this 
environment is used to nurture innovation, not stifle it. I am 
including a copy of my resume for your reference. References are 
available on request.
    Dave Doucette Home:
    DaveDoucette@mediaone.net




MTC-00003524

From: Peter Yellman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:26pm
Subject: DOJ/MS settlement is flawed
    Hon. Judge Kotar-Kelly:
    I been closely following the government`s efforts to reign in 
Microsoft`s illegal and anticompetitive behavior since 1995. I have 
also been a careful student of Microsoft`s misbehavior since I 
gradually came to the conclusion between about 1995-1997 that 
Microsoft was stifling the advance of the computer/software industry 
(as well as being an incorrigible lawbreaker, which is fascially 
evident) with nearly certain negative long-term effects for our 
nation`s economy, despite the fact that I made my living at that 
time as a computer technician servicing Microsoft windows-based 
computers and software. I have been personal witness to outright 
lies perpetuated by Microsoft`s top executives (Steve Ballmer).
    The settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, as proposed by 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice, will do very little to curb 
the illegal behavior that has become the hallmark of that 
corporation, and equally little to deter Microsoft from using its 
monopoly in operating systems to extend its market dominance to 
other markets and product areas. On the other hand, the remedies 
recently proposed by the 9 dissenting states and the District of 
Columbia encapsulate exactly what needs to be done to reinvigorate 
the industry and once again make it a source of interesting and 
exciting professions. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised and 
profoundly impressed with the group who put together that plan, as 
it addresses key issues which I previously (from other government 
prosecutions of Microsoft) concluded public/government officials 
were unable to grasp, or unwilling to address_for example, the 
fairness of requiring Microsoft to open source the Internet Explorer 
web browser which it has imposed on the public through a wide 
variety of illegal means and which has now become a defacto 
standard. In addition to preventing Microsoft from unfairly using 
Internet Explorer as a wedge into new product and service markets 
and penalizing competitors, forcing the company to open source that 
product will undoubtedly be just the `gentle nudge' it 
needs to draw the line of separation between that product and the 
operating system, a relatively trivial technical task that it has 
repeatedly refused to undertake and which has been the subject of so 
much `debate'.
    Finally, I have to note that there is a cloud of suspicion over 
the DOJ`s proposed settlement arising from the massive contributions 
made by Microsoft to the Bush campaign during the most recent 
presidential campaign, especially when tied to the apparent refusal 
of career attourneys at the DOJ to put their names on the deal and 
the unprecedented private audience granted to top Microsoft 
executives shortly after President Bush took office. It is hard not 
to be cynical at the breathtaking about face we have witnessed at 
the Department of Justice under the new administration and the use 
of the terrorist attacks of September 11 to provide political cover 
for these actions. Please do the right thing, Judge Kotar-Kelly.
    Peter Yellman
    Herndon, VA
    webform1@mindspring.com




MTC-00003525

From: K.P. CLARK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regard to Microsoft:
    For five years now I have determined each year to buy a laptop 
computer. However, every time I come close to buying one, we get 
down to what software to include. On my desktop I have the Windows 
Operating System and Microsoft Office Professional, which includes 
programs which I seldom or never use. I am a teacher and a writer, 
and want the laptop to carry back and forth to the college. What I 
need on it is the Windows operating system and Microsoft Word. That 
is all. Can I buy just that? No. I have to buy an entire set of 
programs that I don`t need and won`t use. This is annoying, to say 
the least. Plus there is a program related to a subject I teach that 
I would like to load onto the computer, but other professors who 
have tried, tell me it is not compatible with the Microsoft 
operating system and has messed up their system, so I won`t buy that 
program either. I hear my students complain similarly.
    I have determined to forego the laptop so long as this problem 
exists. Do I have lots of choices? No. I could go with a Mac_a 
nice system_except for the problem of transferring data to my 
desktop. I could go with a Linux operating system but understand 
that is difficult to learn to use. So I will continue to use my old 
desk top and the computer at school until_ and unless_I 
have a more viable choice than paying money for a bunch of programs 
I don`t want. At least I have that those options. I hear that 
Microsoft only affects its competitors and not the consumer. I don`t 
understand how anyone can say this. I am a very small computer user, 
and if it affects me at my level, it must affect many others.
    Katherine Clark




MTC-00003526

From: Gary Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse or whom it may concern,
    I want to register my concern and object to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement agreement.
    I feel the agreement unfairly excludes from protection non-
profit organizations. The internet is comprised of many not-for-
profit companies that are producing product often seen as the major 
competition to Microsoft and the current wording would allow 
Microsoft to exclude these products from any form of interoperation. 
I am refering to many products that include Linux, Perl, Apache, 
Samba and more.
    Thank you,
    Gary Palmer
    gpalmer@usa.net

[[Page 24305]]




MTC-00003527

From: schultze@execpc.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:45pm
Subject: States vs. Microsoft
    Put me on record in favor of Microsoft. Do not punish Microsoft 
for being sucessful in a competitive software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Schultze
    Waukesha WI 53188




MTC-00003528

From: vasu muppalla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 5:58pm
Subject: DOJ settlement with microsoft
    I am a software developer of over a dozen years. During the 
course of these years, I have seen Microsoft`s anti-competitive, 
unethical and even illegal behaviour again and again. While the DOJ 
watched, hundreds of companies and enterprenuers have been robbed of 
success in business or been rendered out of the market by 
Microsoft`s practices. The DOJ has done precious little except 
propose conduct remedies time and again, which Microsoft blatantly 
violated. This so called `settlement` is again in the nature of a 
conduct remedy and thus absolutely useless. Microsoft has profited 
at the destruction of many of its competitors and today has a huge 
cash surplus of $30b; much of it should be spread over its numerous 
competitors. What is the DOJ doing to punish Microsoft for its past 
deeds?
    When a person kills another person, he can receive the death 
penalty but when Microsoft has destroyed numerous companies, why 
should it not be destroyed? Also, why are the individuals of an 
organization that broke the law again and again and again, showing 
utter contempt for law, being completely exempt for their actions?
    Here are my proposals:
    (1) Fine microsoft to the tune of at LEAST $10b to fund open-
source projects.
    (2) Make microsoft develop filters for competing office products 
such as star office and koffice.
    (3) As an alternative to `1', punish all Microsoft 
executives in the past 10 years with severe cash penalties and 
`contempt of court` remedies incl jail time for not complying with 
court decrees.
    (4) Make OEMs not install windows by default. Customers must 
specifically ASK for windows and the cost of that should be 
separately calculated.
    (5) Item `4' shall apply to ALL software, Microsoft 
or not. No software will be bundled with computers except those sold 
to businesses.
    (6) Microsoft shall NOT have any contracts to make windows 
source available to other software companies. They can license 
windows source WITHOUT being forced to reveal their own source code. 
This practice in the past enabled Microsoft to copy source code from 
Real networks, Sybase and many others and sell it as its own!




MTC-00003529

From: Donna (038) Bruno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this case should be settled promptly as it has no merit 
at all. The cost of windows software is very reasonable to persons 
like me. Before Microsoft the computer was next to useless. They 
made the computer easy to use for most people, even at $1000.00 
Windows would be a bargin to me. As far as anti-trust and price 
fixing, one only has to drive down Main Street USA and observe the 
price of gas. Note how the price changes up and down all at the same 
time. If you want more examples, how about your electric and natural 
gas utilities. To sum it up there are a lot of others that are more 
guilty tham Microsoft.




MTC-00003530

From: David Bergman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please make sure that Open Source projects COULD use Microsoft 
calls! Read the following page:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html




MTC-00003531

From: Thunderheaded@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is heavily weighed to the side of 
bitter rivals that will rage under any circumstances. To subject 
Microsoft to their bitter rivals` wishes means compromising security 
to those of us that choose Microsoft. The bitter companies and the 
way they want this situation dealt with not only serves to punish 
Microsoft but those that love America and what she stands for and 
whom she should justly reward (the achievers, not the 
underachievers). This is just another example of hate trying to 
invade the American way, or freedom to be the best one can be. I beg 
of you, do not allow the spoiled sports to run this country. For as 
sure as the way they run with `Microsoft, the convicted 
felons' will they run with the generous offers of Microsoft. 
The bitter rival companies are punishing individuals. If there is a 
worse crime it is the bullies (bitter rivals) that feel they have 
been bullied (by Microsoft) bullying you and I into their mentality 
of mediocrity, focusing on the wrongs in life they have been dealt, 
instead of focusing on the rights. Microsoft has been punished and 
curtailed. So have I and so has Suzi down the street. But that does 
not mean I should open up my doors to those I have wronged and allow 
them to run my household and loot from me, nor to be allowed to take 
the quality out of what I have. Open your eyes and you will see by 
the vicious viruses that have spread to discredit Microsoft whom the 
worst offenders are. Give them more ammunition and they will run 
with it all the way around the world to terrorize America.
    Thank you. Justice is to be served which should include the 
terror tactics the bitter opposition has brought upon Microsoft.




MTC-00003532

From: norm@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    From what I have read, the penalty is a PR press release for 
Microsoft. We helped under privileged schools by giving them 
software they would not have bought anyway. By the way, this 
intrenches them more since school kids will likely see and use 
Microsoft products which encourages them to use them at home and 
later when they go into the corporate world. Having been a victim of 
MS, yes anyone who buys a computer from a retail store is a victim, 
I would like to see them have to buy RedHat or SUSE Linux and deploy 
it to under privileged schools and pay for subsequent training of 
staff. That way we would be exposing our youth to Operating systems 
that are used and designed for the Internet. This would foster 
competition and serve the public`s interest. If they deploy MS 
products, which typically become incompatible with each other after 
each new release, the school will be forced to upgrade each time a 
new release comes out in order to inter-operate with any other 
division that upgrades. This essentially forces them to upgrade and 
buy more MS products in the future.
    If you want to serve the public interest do the following: Stop 
them from forcing people to buy a MS license with each computer. If 
I buy a computer from a retail store I am forced to buy a MS Windows 
license whether I intend to use it or not. I may well delete all 
software and install a competing OS, such as Linux or Solaris. The 
retail store should be able to refund me the purchase price for MS 
and remove it if I ask and get a credit from MS. Any competing OS 
ends up costing double since you are forced to buy an MS license and 
the other OS license as well.
    Gosh, what a deal, for Microsoft that is.
    Thank you,
    Norman Tackett.




MTC-00003533

From: Gary Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    I have been a computer professional for over 20 years. I have 
had the opportunity to watch trends (and companies) come and go. I 
have worked in technical areas of many computers from IBM mainframes 
to Palm handhelds. It would be impossible to be involved in the 
industry as I have been and not have an opinion on Microsoft.
    I used to be a strong proponent of Microsoft and encouraged the 
use of their products. That loyalty disappeared as Microsoft moved 
from an innovative company as they were in the 1980s and started to 
use their acquired industry power and substantial financial power to 
bully and destroy competitors_not through better products, but 
through illegal monopolistic control over a vital part of the 
computer industry. My remaining positive feelings for Microsoft were 
eliminated when, during lunch with Microsoft VP Brad Silverberg, he 
unleashed a grand lie that caused me to provide bad advice to the 
company for which I worked at the time. I came to realize that 
Microsoft is an unethical company who has

[[Page 24306]]

abused the free ecomony of the U.S. and has abused the judicial 
system. Those beliefs were validated by the evidence presented at 
the Microsoft vs DOJ trial.
    The remedy proposed by the Bush administration does not come 
close to an acceptable solution to this problem. The judgment 
against Microsoft is so light that it will serve to embolden a 
company already overflowing with arrogance. It is my expressed wish 
that a more serious and appropriate remedy be taken against 
Microsoft.




MTC-00003534

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have watched the Microsoft case since its beginning and have 
lost faith in our system because of it. The part of the settlement 
that surprised me the most is the idea that Microsoft would provide 
free software to the educational community. The basic idea of this 
falls right in line with what caused them to be in the spot they are 
in. The average user of a computer does not realize that he or she 
is being denied any choices because there are no choices in the 
primary locations people make their purchases. Please continue 
working toward a viable settlement that will provide a choice for 
the consumer.
    Thank you.
    Robert Parker
    Aurora, Colorado 80011




MTC-00003535

From: Carlo Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:29pm
Subject: `Settlement' only in favour of Microsoft
    Instead of getting punished, you are allowing Microsoft to dump 
their monopoly software on all schools! I am very very against this! 
IF there has to be a settlement (which I oppose to begin with) then 
demand that Microsoft ONLY deliver the hardware and does NOT install 
software on it!!! I know that empty computers are not of much use to 
Microsoft_so let RedHat put free software on it, as they 
generously offered (or any other NON-Microsoft).
    If the current, ridiculous, settlement passes_then you`ve 
been tricked by Microsoft and they will be laughing off their asses 
behind your back.
    Carlo Wood 




MTC-00003536

From: pwalker3603@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8714 Chase Tayler Place Louisville, Kentucky 40299
December 6, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to inform you of my feelings concerning 
the Department of Justice and its suit against Microsoft. It is my 
strong belief that the Department of Justice has gone overboard with 
this suit.
    I have been a user of the Windows operating system and feel that 
it has provided me with a simple and very efficient way to use the 
capabilities of my PC. I feel that the simplification of an 
operating system, Windows, is an advantage because it offers a more 
uniform approach to operations and applications.
    The animosity felt towards Microsoft by a select few should be 
refocused to more pressing matters. Microsoft has done a lot of 
things to benefit the nation and all the way down to the local 
community level.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter and I hope you share 
my belief that no more Federal action is warranted in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Walker




MTC-00003537

From: JGSUTILITY@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
Att: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    As a consumer I would like to think that there exists adequate 
protection from both State and Federal government to ensure that we 
are not subject to the whims and abuse of the marketplace.
    In today`s transportation highway a virtual monopoly exists in 
the oil industry. We have seen no alternative that has succeeded in 
the marketplace dominated by such friendly competitors. Choice is a 
sad joke in this area. We cannot afford to allow the same mistake to 
happen on the information highway. We have seen Microsoft market 
defective products and charge us for patches to correct them. We 
have seen them bully their way and intimidate potential innovators 
to either sellout or enter niches that tag onto their monopoly.
    Apple`s existance is at Microsoft`s pleasure. It serves them to 
have the lame dog still in the dog race. We need remedies in place 
to ensure that real competition and choice develops. One would think 
that the taunting and ridiculous self-serving proposals that 
Microsoft has offered would be sufficient to convince the DOJ that 
any handcuffs or self-monitoring punishments are nothing but a joke 
to Microsoft. They feel that the laws were not written for them and 
so far they have been right. What is needed are forceful punishments 
such as forfeiture of sales, not profits, obtained through non-
compliance plus a fine sufficient enough to jar the share price. 
This is the only action that Microsoft understands. Anything less is 
like trying to placate a carnivore with tofu.
    We have spent a great deal of PUBLIC money to arrive at a 
finding that Microsoft engages in monopolistic activites. The public 
deserves a significant return on its investment. Anything less is 
making a mockery of the process and will fuel the further 
disconnection of the people from their government.
    I believe that Microsoft is well able to compete in a leveled 
playing field and I will continue to buy their products as I have in 
the past. My only fear is that without forceful government oversight 
and expensive damages for abusive behavior my interest in their 
products will move from a decision of minuscule choice to a decision 
of no-choice.
    I urge you to fight this battle, figuratively speaking, till 
your last breath for the benefit of all of us.
    Respectfully,
    Jack G. Simke
    Burlingame, CA
    CC:jgsutility@attbi.com@inetgw




MTC-00003538

From: BOBA28@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 7:53pm
Subject: Comment regarding proposed settlement of Microsoft vs. DOJ
    I faxed my comments to the DOJ, but am not sure they made it. 
The number that I sent the comment to was 202-307-1454, 
but the identifier on the Machine receiving the Fax was 
202-353-8856.
    My comments follow:
    I support the current settlement with Microsoft by the 
Department of Justice and half of the states involved in this 
lawsuit. I do not think any more severe penalties are warranted. 
Microsoft probably deserved a little hand slapping because of the 
way they dealt with the computer manufacturers. But the issue 
surrounding the operating system improvements and add ons is 
frivolous. The Internet Explorer was a needed part of the operating 
system and add ons such as these should be allowed. It was also very 
easy for others to use Netscape if they wanted to. Bottom line is 
that Internet Explorer wound up being the best browser. I believe 
that a large part of the fuss on this issue is being made by 
Microsoft`s competitors who have wound up second and third best and 
have tried to compensate for their under performance by supporting 
the antitrust law suit against Microsoft. I believe that a major 
motivating force for the hold out states is purely political as it 
relates to companies in their area and political contributions.
    As a consumer, I believe that Microsoft has been good to us. 
They have provided outstanding products at reasonable and decreasing 
prices. Some states would prefer that consumers buy all of the add 
ons and that could be big down the road. Where Microsoft has been 
dominant in a particular software application, prices have fallen. I 
also believe that Microsoft has contributed mightily to the US 
economy. They have probably been the biggest contributor in the last 
10 years. They should not be punished for being good to consumers 
and the economy. I might also add that Microsoft is a good corporate 
citizen.
    It is time to settle this suit as the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft have proposed. The more harsh remedies that are being 
proposed by the non-agreeing states should be rejected.
    Bob Andrews
    Robert F. Andrews
    1864 Castle Oaks Court
    Walnut Creek, CA 94595

[[Page 24307]]




MTC-00003539

From: Vincent Sheffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:02pm
Subject: Settlement a travesty
    I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the antitrust 
settlement reached with Microsoft. I have always believed that 
justice in the U.S. means 2 things: punishment for the offender and 
remedies that prevent the offender from breaking the law, and thus 
harming society, again. Your settlement fails miserably on both 
counts. I see absolutely no punishment and, even worse, MS will be 
able to carry on with the same exact behavior for which they were 
found guilty by 8 judges (the original trial judge as well as the 7 
appeals court judges). Finally, to the degree that the remedies are 
supposed to prevent a repeat of MS illegal behavior they won`t. The 
most glaring weakness is in the area of APIs. The lead time that MS 
competitors are supposed to get by more timely release of the APIs 
is still not sufficient and leaves MS with a substantial advantage 
over its rivals. More troubling are the loopholes for allowing MS to 
not release certain APIs. Specifically, allowing them to withhold 
specifications for security related APIs allows them to pursue their 
most important current and future initiative fully capable of using 
the same aggressive (and illegal) tactics that the remedy is 
supposed to prevent. MS`s Passport authentication system, which is 
their most significant strategic product moving into the future, 
will be exempted from this so-called remedy. Just as the current DOJ 
would never consider letting a convicted drug dealer off the hook 
without being punished, neither should you let a convicted corporate 
offender off with no punishment and free to engage in exactly the 
same condemned behavior in the future. If the current settlement 
proceeds unchanged it will be like giving the convicted drug dealer 
another bag of crack and letting them off in front of a school yard.
    Thank you,
    Vincent Sheffer
    Software Developer




MTC-00003540

From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:32pm
Subject: Settlement
    Let Microsoft be Microsoft_Remember, it is its Windows 
software that unified the computer systems to be able to `talk 
to each other'. Give it some credit. And how has it hurt the 
consumers? Let the competitors come up with the better software and 
consumers will flock to it! These 9 states all have constituents 
with competing software manufacturers.
    Mary Shen




MTC-00003541

From: harry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 8:33pm
Subject: ie
    Microsoft is justified in bundling their own software with 
Windows. It is not justifiable however to include these pieces of 
software and then not allow the consumer the option to uninstall it. 
I myself would not use Windows XP`s firewall utility, windows media 
player, or Internet Explorer, so I should have the ability to choose 
all of these applications and uninstall them. Microsoft has built 
Windows with these applications in mind so if I even could uninstall 
them I would be breaking half of the functionality that Windows XP 
now provides. Also, many of Microsofts new .net initiatives will 
further fatten their monopoly since many companies are going to jump 
on to support this new architecture and then we the consumers are 
going to be forced to use Microsoft`s os to benefit from them. I use 
linux because of its stability and because it is open sourced. I 
feel that many of Microsofts own networking protocols and file type 
information should be accessible to the public, so that various 
applications can benefit from using their technology. Then we can 
work on creating better applications that take advantage of a 
singular protocol. The American people should have the right to 
decide which software packages they want installed on their system 
and applications should not have to define their own file types just 
because 99% of the office community must use Microsoft Office to 
remain compatible.




MTC-00003542

From: Watts Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the settlement as currently extant seriously flawed. 
Microsoft is not seriously hindered from continuing to engage in 
unfair and or unethical business practices. I was (very) 
disappointed at the limited scope of the original charge. Many of 
Microsofts most egregious faults were completely ignored. C`est la 
vie. The proposed settlement agreement ignores the hobby and Open 
Source software movement. The Apache web server program currrently 
enjoys the largest market share. There are many other examples of 
non-commercial software, too numerous to enumerate here, which are 
effectively disempowered re Microsoft by the provisions (Section 
III(J)(2) and Section III(D)) of the agreement. I`m not an attorney 
nor do I have any significant legal training but I also suspect 
these provisions also leave out educational establishments as well 
as federal and state government agencies.
    In summation, I strongly oppose the settlement its current form.




MTC-00003543

From: andre@pimout1-int.prodigy.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the current settlement is not even a slap on wrist 
given the egregious abuse of monopoly power and flagrant violation 
of the law that Microsoft has engaged in. The only sure way to cure 
Microsoft is a structural remedy. History has shown that any other 
approach will simply be ignored.
    The language of the settlement is full of loopholes which can 
(and will!) be easily exploited by Microsoft to continue to shut out 
any meaningful competition. In particular the language against not-
for-profits in Section III(J)(2), allows Microsoft to shut out 
competition from organization such as Apache Foundation and SAMBA.
    I`ll keep this short since there will many more detailed 
analyses of the shortcomings of the proposed settlement, but I do 
wish to register my displeasure at this weak document.
    Andre Burgoyne
    Software engineer, U.S. citizen and voter
    aburgoyne@sbcglobal.net
    2446 Grant Street
    Berekely, CA 94703




MTC-00003544

From: Darren Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    I would like to add my voice of concern about the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement.
    I have worked in the computer industry for fifteen years and am 
now an independant software developer. I have also taken a very 
strong interest in the Microsoft Antitrust Case and belive I have 
read almost every article that has been written about it over the 
last few years since the case began. It has been for me a case of 
`will justice be served` and a bit of a reflection on the 
state of the world. I don`t think justice is being served at all in 
the proposed settlement. The state of the world in computers isn`t 
looking too good at the moment. Microsoft has acted against the 
spirit and law of the antitrust regulations on a regular basis and 
appears to be still doing so. They have been found guilty of serious 
antitrust violations. They don`t appear to be in any way interested 
in developing new and innovative software, rather their primary 
concern is to make sure that they control the market in as many 
areas as they possibly can.
    I am certain that this is stifling innovation in the industry. 
The industry these days seems to have `not getting in 
Microsoft`s` way as their prime focus and only seems to be 
innovating in areas outside of Microsoft`s concern. I remember well 
when new ideas and technologies were driving the industry forward on 
an almost daily basis. Now in the major applications areas and in 
consumer operating systems there seems to be very little if any 
innovation. Microsoft Word and Excel haven`t gotten any better for 
years. Internet Explorer, now that it owns the market for web 
browsers, hasn`t gotten better for years.
    The market for computers and software is now as dead as it has 
ever been. Sales are low and growth is slow, and there doesn`t 
appear to be much ahead that will fix this while the market is being 
continuously stifled.
    For what it`s worth, here`s what I think urgently needs to be 
done;
    1. Windows XP, with all of it`s new `free` add ons needs 
to have the add ons removed, or at the very least XP neds to be 
available at a cheaper price without these add ons. We are talking 
about add ons to do with multimedia, sound, video and instant 
communications here! These are crucial areas. If Microsoft is 
allowed to include these for free in their operating system then we 
can say good bye to innovation in these areas. As

[[Page 24308]]

things stand I can see versions of Windows Media Player that 
`never get any better` being around for a long time to come 
and keeping this vital area of the market stifled. There is much 
that could be done in multimedia and communications if this section 
of the industry isn`t stifled.
    The fact that Microsoft has been allowed to release Windows XP 
with all of this bundled software so soon after it had been found 
guilty in court and on appeal of numerous antitrust violations makes 
no sense at all.
    2. Microsoft should publish freely and to everyone any 
networking specifications that it puts into it`s Windows software. 
Even better, it should be made to go through a standards committee 
if it wants to add to or change it`s networking code. We are not 
just talking about networking here, we are talking about the future 
of the Internet.
    The Internet is (so far) based on open and accessible systems 
that have evolved openly and that anyone can use freely. Microsoft 
is adding `Microsoft only' code to it`s Windows 
operating system and to it`s server software. Windows now 
`works better' with Microsoft servers than with other 
servers, not because they have come up with better systems but 
because they have `designed' their systems to operate in 
this way. This might be fine of the code used to do this was open 
and available and Microsoft was genuinely innovating, but the code 
is closed and propriatory. Nobody else but Microsoft has the power 
to introduce closed propriatory systems to the Internet, and 
Microsoft is only able to do this because of it`s market share in 
desktop operating systems. If people cannot see the networking code 
that Microsoft is including in Windows, then Microsoft will suddenly 
be able to control the server market and, by simple extension 
through it`s .net strategy, the protocols that are the foundation of 
the Internet.
    If Microsoft owns the Internet protocols then we are all in 
trouble! Even if they just own some of them it will be enough to 
require almost everyone to use their software. They have done 
exactly what they are doing now time and time again in numerous 
other markets and they have always succeeded. They are likely to do 
the same here. Microsoft needs to publish and make freely available 
their Windows networking code in all instances. They should not even 
be allowed to own the rights to this code. They should be made to 
adopt standards and even to go through standards bodies before 
making changes.
    I hope someone reads this and takes it seriously. These are 
vital matters which are not being addressed or not being addressed 
adequately in the proposed antitrust settlement. The proposed 
settlement, in my opinion, will not hinder or even slow Microsoft 
down in these vital areas.
    I have many other thoughts on these matters. If anyone is 
interested in hearing them please let me know.
    Darren Beck
    http://www.codecity.net




MTC-00003545

From: Gary Lindgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
12/8/2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S Department of Justice
    In a general way, I fully support the proposed settlement 
agreement agreed to by Microsoft, USDOJ, and the 9 states. Let me 
tell you a little of what my background is and how I use software. 
I`m an engineer and develop Windows applications that control test 
instruments for manufacturing use. At work I also use Microsoft 
applications for normal office needs. At home My wife and I use 
Windows applications(Microsoft and others) for office use and the 
internet. Also at home I do a little development of Windows 
applications. Our home network consists of 3 PCs, One with 
Win2000(used mostly for regular use), one with WinXPPro(for 
Windows.Net development), and one with Linux OS and used for the 
firewall to the outside via a DSL connection to the internet.
    It is extremely important that Microsoft be allowed to control 
what features are included in their applications. This is a must. 
Microsoft must be allowed to add and control what is in their 
operating system. The argument that the other 9 states AGs have used 
that Microsoft should provide a stripped down version that does not 
include multimedia features is bogus. Customers don`t want this, 
it`s the competition that wants this. Price has never been a problem 
with Microsoft products. The only problem for the competition is 
that Microsoft prices are too low. This is what some of the 
competition is worried about. Other multimedia can be easily 
downloaded or come from CD-ROMs from the mail(how many CDs have you 
received from AOL). The proposed settlement that prevents Microsoft 
from forcing PC builders to exclude other competition is good. This 
should improve competition. The settlement clause that requires 
Microsoft disclose the Windows APIs to the developers is extremely 
important. Here I have a suggestion for a small change and I believe 
the other 9 states will go along with this. I propose that that the 
Windows APIs be disclosed in 6 months time and be available on 
Microsoft`s web site. These APIs must be freely available everyone 
and not just to certain subscribers to the MSDN service.
    In summary: The proposed settlement agreed to by DOJ, Microsoft, 
and 9 states is good. The disclosure of WinAPIs should be made 
available in 6 months and to everyone that wishes to see them. 
Please let me know if I can be of any further service.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Lindgren
    585 Lincoln Ave
    Palo Alto CA 94301
    650-594-3846




MTC-00003546

From: Ruben Odom jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:23pm
Subject: Anti Trust
    I know that Microsoft is the most popular and trusted software 
developer in the world. This is because they make it easy for every 
person to get involved in the computer efficiency movement. There 
was no way for the computer giant to actually close out other 
companies from the computer industry. When the DOJ made them (and 
all other software developer`s) from exclusive contracts, that made 
the way for other software makers (like RedHat) to actually make 
there way into the door with its free software.
    The interest of the Free Software Movement`s head way onto the 
desk top through the loss of exclusive contracts may make it more 
visible, but still wont be able to `level the playing 
field' for the computer hobbyist. They will have to be able to 
differentiate themselves with ease, simplicity, and power that any 
corporate software make does in order to over through the software 
giant.
    The Free Software foundation is not one David`s smooth stones 
that can topple Goliath (Microsoft). It can only be done with the 
stones of public trust, longevity, and simplicity. I truly don`t 
think that free stuff will ever win enough granite make these stones 
because there is no warranty. There is also a shortage of IT people 
that can service the masses and therefore, fall behind the 
capabilities of the American business model.
    The hole of the Free Software Movement talks a bold game in 
saying that they want to place there already free software in the 
schools, but don`t have the necessary resources to capture and keep 
the natural curiosity of a child_let alone a poor one that 
wants the pride of being like the Jones. If the poor schools don`t 
take the free resources, then a rich school will and there will 
continue to be a wider gape between the rich and poor.
    I feel that Linux should stay something for the hobbyist and 
computer professionals because the common, still weary user will 
loose interest quickly. Trust me, Free Software lacks any creativity 
what so ever and will always be a cheap substitute because of it. Me 
on the other hand_a tech nut, know and value Free Linux. 
However, I realize the limitations and see that other software 
makers need to get off of there a**es and come up with an operating 
system that supports all of the modern technology.
    Ruben A. Odom Jr.
    aron37@msn.com




MTC-00003547

From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 9:36pm
Subject: Microsofft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In 1995, Microsoft gave its browser away to the public, and they 
still do. This has been a tremendous benefit to the consumer!!!! 
Before that time you had to purchase it through Netscape and they 
had the only browser on the market. Everyone I know was extremely 
happy that Microsoft was giving away Internet Explorer free of 
charge!
    I am just one of many small consumers, but I think this suit has 
nothing to do with harming consumers! I think it has to do with 
harming other competitors, namely Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and AOL.
    I firmly believe that this country is based on free enterprise, 
and the government

[[Page 24309]]

should not interfere with the personal grudges and competition from 
other companies I think everyone including the nine states should 
accept the Justice Departments & Microsoft`s settlement 
agreement. Let`s get on with life, and perhaps this will help put an 
end to the recession that we have in our country today.
    Best Regards,
    Ray Reid




MTC-00003548

From: DR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:05pm
Subject: make windows open source
    Make windows open source, so that anyone who runs it has the 
choice of how it interacts with what hardware/software they have, at 
the moment there is no choice and users are dependant on less than 
reliable operating systems (windows) to deal with... making windows 
open source opens up many possibilities and does not kill microsoft. 
They can still support an open source operating system, and the 
poeple using it will not be dictated to how microsoft thinks the way 
they sould be interacting with it. every other OS out there is open 
source. and it promotes freedom for the end user. No longer would 
the blue screen of death be something that they would just 
`have to deal with'.
    What made me make this statement was after seeing the cost of 
XP. In Australia (and im sure same in US) the rediculous cost of 
this less than adequate OS is more than half the cost of a decent 
computer, Is that freedom of choice for the user that doesnt now 
much better? thats a monopoly. This has gone further than the days 
when MS decided to rear end Netscape by bundling IE into windows , 
and im sure the cost of XP solidifies that. And what has microsoft 
got by being forced to spend money of less than fortunate students? 
Good PR. that is not a solution that will stop MS doing what they 
are doing, it will just amplify their monopoly.
    Forgive me if i am wrong, but isnt its the governments role to 
be helping under priveleged children with funding.?? MS does its 
punishment by forking out a small sum of their empire, and continues 
to screw the rest of the software dev community.
    Count how many applications become superceded by XP.. winzip is 
one of them. Wasnt this the reason the DOJ took MS to court for in 
the first place? for anti competetiveness?
    Kind Regards
    Duane Reilly
    Unix Administrator




MTC-00003549

From: Robert D. Wales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:17pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft case results
    I think that the government has been too lenient on ( if not 
aiding) Microsoft with its verdict.
    (1) To allow Microsoft to `donate' their products to 
schools is aiding them to increase their monopoly by training 
students to use only their products.
    (2) To allow Microsoft to continue to include their programs in 
their operating systems essentially gives them a monopoly on all 
aspects of computer software.
    (3) To allow Microsoft to undermine, corrupt, and otherwise 
defeat the use of any programs but their own is to force all other 
companies into bankruptcy.
    (4) To allow Microsoft to keep their source code private with no 
good controls is to further aid in their monopolistic endeavors.
    Thank you in advance for considering my comments,
    Yours,
    R. D. Wales




MTC-00003550

From: Shinita Crawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi my name is Shinita and for class our professor wants us to 
find out the who are the parties affected by this settlement and 
cite our sources.
    Do all of the parties have to agree with settlement? What 
happens to those parties who decide not to join in on the settlement 
and what will their remedy be?
    If you can answer any of these questions please email me at 
cinnamon222@hotmail.com




MTC-00003551

From: Raquel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:28pm
Subject: This one deserves a second look ....
    Dear Fellow Entrepreneur,
    Are you achieving the results that you are trying to achieve 
with your online business?
    If your current business is offering a product that is a quick 
and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people, most of 
the time, then you would be very happy, and wealthy. WELL DONE. If 
it is not, than unfortunately you are probably not making much 
money, and presumably won`t.
    Unfortunately if your product is not a quick and simple solution 
to a problem that concerns most people, most of the time, then you 
won`t be able to market to the majority of the Internet population 
out their will you. Anyone who is making any real money out there 
would have to have a quick and simple solution to a problem that 
concerns most people, most of the time wouldn`t they. Sorry for 
repeating it so often, but if you truly want to make any money 
through the Internet, then you will need to know this sentence (a 
quick and simple solution to a problem that concerns most people, 
most of the time) off by heart.
    If you really want to make money using the Internet, than I may 
be able to help you. I say maybe because this business is not for 
anyone who is not going to be committed to making $40,000 in 6 
weeks, (Quicksmart, which is shown below) and then working towards 
making $1,000,000 in 180 days using a very effective program called 
Infoshare.
    Both these programs WILL make you money as long as you are 
committed to making them successful.
    Others just like you and myself ARE making this kind of money as 
you read this. If you are committed enough to do exactly as I say, 
then you WILL succeed. It is very VERY simple, and I will help you 
with everything you need to know to become successful. I am not 
successful unless you are, so I will not leave you in the dark like 
others often do. I will do everything I can to help you.
    Discover how to make true wealth using the same secrets that the 
millionaires are using to achieve results and success on the Web.
    Remember the old saying `If you can`t beat them, join 
them.'
    Well this is the same thing. You are about to Learn how the big 
guns are making all that easy money, and how YOU TOO can live a life 
of good health, love, and have all the time in the world to give to 
yourself and your family.
    Once if I receive your $5, I will send you the URL address of 
the `Lazyman`s Guide to Success' in Phase 2.
    Once there you will be able to learn all the secrets to success 
on the Web. You will also have access to 3 sensational programs for 
free, which you will use to send out hundreds of E-mail every day. 
This is what makes this program so different to the ones that are 
very hard to make successful. Advertising at various classified 
sites really does not work, does it? So we need to find another way 
to advertise our business, and sending out bulk E-mail every day to 
a targeted population does work. This program is probably the 
easiest to set up and run, and also the quickest to make great 
money.
    In Phase 2 you will send out bulk E-mail using 3 very effective 
programs. The first you will use to extract E-mail addresses from 
various free classified web sites.
    The second will sort out your E-mail list that you have just 
extracted so that you will have a clean list of E-mail addresses to 
send your offer to. Finally your third program will send out your 
Bulk E-mail.
    Do you agree that this is a much more effective way of 
advertising then placing ads all over different classified web 
sites, and just receiving counter offers in your inbox? From now on 
you will still have plenty of E-mail, but it will be people wanting 
to sign up. Now that is what I call results.
    The last thing, and the most important to be successful, is to 
DREAM. Dream and make goals of what you want to buy for yourself, 
your family and friends.
    Dream about where you want to live, go on a holiday, and what 
kind of car you have always wanted, and of course, what life will be 
like when you ARE a MILLIONAIRE. This is the most important 
ingredient to success. Every successful person does it. Why? Success 
WILL NOT come unless you dream and set goals. The reason that we set 
goals and dream is for the simple fact that if you come across a 
problem, then you should think about your goal or dream. This will 
make you determined enough to seek help and move on. I will be here 
to help you, so that you can get passed any problem that you may 
come across. No business is perfect, but you can not find a much 
easier one than this One. Once you have fixed the problem, you will 
move forward and be $1,000,000 richer, and your goals and dreams all 
come true.

[[Page 24310]]

And of course you will set higher goals and dreams for yourself.
    LET`S GET STARTED SHALL WE!!! Yes right now, not tomorrow. 
Because I know you are keen to be successful. Save this E-mail to 
your hard drive and read it OFFLINE so that you are not wasting 
valuable money on the Internet, and do exactly as it says. Once you 
read it, if you have any questions with anything, anything at all, 
than send me an E-mail. Once you have made your easy $40,000 in the 
next 6 weeks, we will than start to set up the real money making 
machine `Infoshare' so that you can make $40,000 look 
like pocket money. I look forward to hearing from you, and let 
success begin.
    PEOPLE HELPING PEOPLE (Quicksmart Program) `The key to 
success' (No one can cheat and no one can move ahead of you.)
    PHASE 1: This program is designed to make money via 
Internet_quickly and honestly! It is quite new, yet already 
proven to be most effective. It is truly exciting, with many people 
now using it, and with so many more still to see it. It is not the 
same as other programs that (only at first) may seem to be similar. 
This program has been designed to avoid all of the traps and all of 
the cheats. You can quickly prove that it is both real and safe, 
before you decide to participate. NOTE: Please read this complete 
document to be sure that you fully understand it. If I told you I 
would give you the $1,000,000 to jump out of a plane without a 
parachute, you would probably say `No way', right? You 
would have missed out on the easiest million dollars in your life as 
the plane was on the ground. Make sure you know all the facts before 
deciding. Take the time to read it again and again if you have to. 
E-mail me with any questions if you remain unsure of anything. 
Should you decide to run it, by following the easy instructions 
carefully, you will be delighted with the results!
    PHASE 1 BEGINS: Prepare to be impressed! This program is very 
powerful_a real money generator on the Web! No other program 
comes close when you need money quickly and honestly. You are 
guaranteed financial success with this opportunity because of the 
method used to CONFIRM the HONESTY of each participant. However, 
when most of us first look at this program, we may think its just 
another get rich quick scheme. But it isn`t_by reading the 
details you will see that it is quite different. And only about a 
week after starting, money will start rolling in quickly from all 
over the world!
    This is a FAIL-SAFE money making program where all cash receipts 
are verifiable in advance, because every participant is held 
ACCOUNTABLE. Every participant gets paid well, Every participant is 
sure that nobody can cheat. That is why I chose to participate. I 
invite you to do likewise. Being fail-safe and cheat proof, what 
have we got to lose?
    The power of the Internet is here to be used. More and more 
people are using this program to produce a substantial income 
quickly.
    Expect to earn up to US$40,000 in the next six weeks (MAXIMUM 
TIME). We all know that Internet money programs can really work, but 
most of us have major concerns about them:
    1. They are too complex, often requiring large investments.
    2. They require real Internet marketing experience.
    3. There is usually no way of monitoring returns.
    4. There is no way of eliminating cheaters.
    This program solves all of those concerns! It is 100% certain 
that everyone will get paid for participating. This is because we 
require accountable E-mail addresses for all participants. The total 
cost to you is two US $5 Bills, plus postage for just two letters. 
(Not a lot, no matter what your present circumstances may be.)
    But you spend nothing at all, until you gain E-mail confirmation 
that the sender of this letter has paid! Please read this carefully. 
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by replying to my 
E-mail address, as the sender of this program.
    The fail-safe mechanism controls the program, so it`s impossible 
for anyone to cheat. This way nobody gets hurt and everyone gets 
paid. All participants make the money they deserve for their 
efforts. Read on and you will see why.
    The method of accountability used keeps everyone honest. We all 
get our money by building an easy and valuable MAILING LIST. Too 
many programs before this one have no fail-safe method for 
protecting the honest participants from those who put their names on 
a list without sending any money. That is what causes such programs 
to ultimately fail.
    With this program it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR SUCH CHEATING TO HAPPEN. 
If you decide to participate, you will be required to send $5 (US 
currency) to just two of the people on the list shown below, with a 
note asking them to add your name to their Mailing List and send you 
a copy of, `Phase 2'. More about that shortly.
    First take the time to SAVE this letter to a word file so that 
you can edit the prescribed areas later if you do decide to join. 
Once you finish reading check the honesty of me and that I have paid 
my $10. The very first step is to E-mail the two people in the 
Position #1 and Position #2 from the current Accountability 
List below, and ask them if they have received their $5 from me. 
This is what MAKE`S CERTAIN the success of this program. You will 
not send money to me until you KNOW that I have paid the people in 
Positions 1 and 2.
    POSITION #1
    Mikael Mansson
    Ringovagen 103
    SE-37160 LYCKEBY
    SWEDEN
    Email: mmnetbiz@home.se
    POSITION #2
    Michael Warren
    6/70 East Ave
    Black Forest, South Australia 5035
    Australia
    E-mail: wmclife@aol.com
    E-mail to check accountability: mwpaid@aol.com
    The above are the two people I sent my US $5 to, with a note 
asking them to add me to their mailing list and send me Phase 2.
    After you have verified that I am genuine and decide to 
participate, address an Envelop to the person currently in Position 
#3 (me), put a $5 bill (US Currency), your name, address, and E-
mail address included, on a note that reads `Please add my 
name to your Mailing List and rush Phase 2 to me' NOTE: Only 
the person in Position #3 supplies Phase 2, NEVER any other 
person. Also take care to write the names of the addressees 
correctly. (some international names can sound a little bit 
unfamiliar to Americans or Australians).
    POSITION #3
    Steve Starlight
    Room 507
    Kayajang Motel
    1094-6, Eu-Bang Dong
    Gimhae City
    Busan
    Kyung-Nam
    Republic of Korea 621-170
    E-Mail: rogers6513@hotmail.com
    Again please turn the closest attention to correctly overwriting 
the addresses of the persons you will direct a letter with a $5 bill 
to.
    Next, address an envelope to the person in Position #4; 
enclose a $5 bill, your name, address, and E-mail address with a 
note that states, `Please add me to your mailing list'
    POSITION #4
    Matthew Jahred
    131 Mainstreet
    Birmingham
    United Kingdom
    E-mail: matthewjad@yahoo.uk.com
    NOW ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EDIT YOUR COPY OF THIS LETTER AS 
FOLLOWS:
    FIRST: Move the person currently in POSITION #4 to POSITION 
#2. Be sure all information is copied correctly and completely. 
(The person originally in Position #2 is now dropped from the 
list, and has made their $40,000)
    SECOND: Move the person in POSITION #1 to POSITION #4 
with all the correct information.
    THIRD: Move the person in POSITION #3 to POSITION #1 
with all the correct information.
    FINALLY: Enter YOUR name, complete address, and E-mail address 
in to POSITION #3. Please also provide your name and E-mail 
address at the end of this letter. Remember: You only send the $5 to 
the names in POSITIONS #3 and #4 on this letter DO NOT SEND 
MONEY TO THE NAMES IN POSITIONS #1 AND #2.
    NOTE: When typing your E-mail address, please remember to be 
accurate. Double check! Once you start, there are two simple things 
you must do to make this work for the maximum return in 2 months.
    BE PATIENT at the start! It takes easily a week or so to really 
get up and going, and to start receiving lots of money in your 
letterbox.
    BUT THEY WILL COME! This is the Internet! YOU WILL DEFINITELY 
MAKE A LARGE SUM OF MONEY WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, and you will also have 
a mailing list service to use yourself, or even to sell. That in 
itself can be valuable.
    THIS PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO MAKE MONEY FAST! It is very 
INEXPENSIVE to participate in, just compare it to the value of

[[Page 24311]]

lottery tickets_where making money is next to impossible! 
There are no postage expenses, other than the two stamps needed to 
mail your two $5 bills.
    If any of the addresses require overseas mailing, do it via 
airmail for speed. Think of the power of the program running 
Internationally! There are no name lists, nor other unseen expenses. 
Other than the two initial letters, this program operates totally 
on-line
    FURTHER INFORMATION: You may already feel that this program is 
not what you thought at first, but still remain doubtful or a little 
unclear about whether or not to have a go. Unlike so many other 
programs, you do not send money to four or five people for reports, 
recipes, disks, or any other product. Nor do you risk losing your 
time and money.
    This program is less demanding and does not take advantage of 
the naive. Effectively, we all become a team_we know that we 
must follow the rules, and that our teamwork ensures that we all 
win. This program has been set up so that you will succeed. If you 
do exactly as described, then you will succeed, in this business
    To compare this with the many uncontrolled programs: First of 
all, this program has only four controlled, levels_not five, 
six, seven, or more uncontrolled levels like other programs. When 
you first send this program out, you will soon get 40-50 
people who send you $5 to join the mailing list and to commence 
their Phase 2. They will do this only after they confirm that you 
have paid your $10.
    To account for curiosity seekers, and people who don`t recognize 
the opportunity (not you, of course!), let`s say that only 20 people 
then actually pursue the program provided. These 20 in the 
Accountability List POSITION #1, and their respondents will be 
asking YOU if they paid their $5 dollars. Their active participants 
will then move your name to POSITION #4, WHERE YOU WILL BE 
RECEIVING $5 notes from 20 x 20 x 20 people. That`s a total of 8,000 
people. 8000 X $5 = $40,000!
    Because this is done on the Internet it moves very quickly. 
Therefore, you only need 20 ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS who actually promote 
this program to reach the target. You should advertise/E-mail until 
twice that number of people (40-50) has sent you the $5 and 
received Phase 2 from you via E-mail. At this point, all you will 
have to do will be to answer the E-mails saying, `Yes, I have 
been paid.'
    NOTE: Be sure to keep a record of those who have paid and added 
to your mailing list, and respond very quickly to verification 
requests. You will be able to keep your list in alphabetical order 
with Listmanager. (A free program that you will have with Phase 2) 
Remember that you may send this program to people who send you 
similar programs. Many such people are keen and active users of 
opportunities sent to them, and this one is safe, fast and simple. 
It will not appeal to cheats, yet be great for anyone looking for a 
VERY low cost, fun investment. Just keep sending as much E-mail as 
you possibly can! You will be amazed with the responses you get from 
the Web. The Internet is a powerful tool. But remember: we are 
responsible to the team. That means to everyone who participates 
both before and after we become involved.
    SUMMARY OF THE SIMPLE STEPS TO FOLLOW: FIRST: Save this file as 
your PHASE 1 file, where you can edit the changes. (Names, 
addresses, E-mail address, and position`s) SECOND: Get two US $5 
bills and mail by post ($5 each) to the people listed above in 
Positions 3 and 4, with a request to join their mailing list.
    Note: That cost is your ONLY financial risk THIRD: Update the 
names on the list carefully, as detailed above. YOUR name, address 
and E-mail address names in at Position #3 (where mine is now).
    You then wait for PHASE 2 to arrive in your E-mail box from me. 
This will be sent the same day that your $5 arrives at my home 
address.
    HOW YOUR NAME MOVES THROUGH THE SYSTEM:
    FIRST: Your name starts at Position #3 in Phase 1_to 
all of the people you E-mail. You would aim to get about 40 
responses, but more would be even more profitable.
    SECOND: You will E-mail PHASE 2 out to each person who has sent 
you $5. You will be instructing your respondents to place your name 
in POSITION #1. You will then begin receiving inquiries from 
others asking if you have been paid your $5. You will be keeping 
track of all those who you have been paid by. You won`t be receiving 
much money at this stage (just the $5 you received from each person 
in Phase 1, which will be from $200-$250 or so) THIRD: Those people 
who have just inquired as to whether payment was made to you, will 
be getting another 20 or more people to participate, and your name 
will then be in POSITION #4. This is when you will receive the 
BIG MONEY LAST: Your name will be in Position #2, where you will 
again be receiving inquiries, and you will be likely to answer at 
this point YES, I AM $40,000 RICHER.
    Many will then participate and make money also. Participation is 
all that we require for success. Isn`t this a brilliant business? We 
really have the best, because we have created a foolproof and cheat-
proof system, where everybody has accountability. Your small 
investment of two $5 bills will reward you with $40,000 or more! 
Once again, please E-mail me if you have any questions. None of us 
are able to go back for a new beginning. But, we learn and grow, so 
all of us are able to make a new start. Just do it! Good fortune to 
all of you and have fun! Do you see how easy it is to make your 
first $40,000 in 2 months. If you don`t think it is easy, or don`t 
completely understand it, than read over until you do. If you still 
want some help, then don`t hesitate in sending me an E-mail. Do NOT 
leave it. Your financial future depends on it. Ok, so where is the 
$1,000,000 you ask. Well that is an even easier concept. All you 
need to do is to make sure that at least 10 of your active 
participants join Infoshare as a Gold partner. This will happen 
automatically by the time you have your $40,000, because they too 
will want to make $1,000,000.
    In fact, the majority of participants in Quicksmart will join 
Infoshare all by themselves, as you will direct them too do so, so 
that they can make their $1,000,000. They too will also have at 
least 10 participants from Quicksmart join them in Infoshare, and so 
on for 6 levels down. All you need to do is make sure that at least 
10 of your active participants join Infoshare and the rest will 
happen. The participants that you have recruited will also make sure 
that they all have 10 in Infoshare, so that they will make their 
$1,000,000. You will not have to do any more than make sure you have 
10 Gold members in Infoshare, and within 180 days, you will be 
$1,000,000 richer. Just check out `The Compensation 
Plan' at http://wisemulesclub.com/partners/comp.html to find 
out just how much you will earn.
    Once you decide that you are going to make $1,000,000 in the 
next 180, you have checked the accountability of me, and sent your 
$10 you will be ready to start preparing for Phase 2. Until you 
receive Phase 2, I want you to start collecting URL`s of all the 
free classified web sites you can find. Why don`t you start by 
checking out http://everydaybusinessonline.com/adsites.htm for 
hundreds of free classified web sites to extract your E-mails from.
    Make a list of all the FREE Classified Web site addresses, where 
the E-mail address of the person advertising is in front of you in 
the advertisement. If it does NOT show you the E-mail address and 
instead has a link to access their E-mail address, then do not 
record that classifieds URL.
    You will use these URL`s to feed your mail finder program, and 
then it will extract hundreds of E-mail`s from these sites. The more 
classifieds the better. Once you find a free classified web site 
that has the E-mail address showing, then click on your right mouse 
button, and click on properties. Highlight the URL and copy it. Then 
paste it into Notepad. Don`t save it into Microsoft Word as the 3 
programs used only read from a text document, Notepad. You should 
find Notepad by clicking on your start button, programs, and then 
accessories.
    Wishing you all the best and here is to success on the web,
    Steve Starlight
    Room 507
    Kayajang Motel
    1094-6, Eu-Bang Dong
    Gimhae City
    Busan
    Kyung-Nam
    Republic of Korea 621-170
    E-Mail rogers6513@hotmail.com
    This one time mailing is sent in compliance with strict anti-
abuse and NO SPAM regulations. Your address was collected as a 
result of posting to a link, a classified ad, a message to my FFA 
Page, you have sent me an E-mail recently, or you are on a list that 
I have purchased. You may remove your E-mail address at no cost to 
you whatsoever by simply sending an E-mail to 
mahaplag6514@firstpobox.com with REMOVE as the subject.




MTC-00003552

From: Curtis Carmichael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:34pm
Subject: My Opinion
    I believe Microsoft is a monopoly and the corporation has lots 
of power, which I feel

[[Page 24312]]

should be minimized by breaking the company in two parts. This would 
give other companies a fair chance.
    _Curtis Carmichael




MTC-00003553

From: 
Richard_Marvin@compuserve.com@inet
gw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft already retaliating against non-MS broswers
    At the unveiling of the new look of the MSN.com portal, it 
became clear that Microsoft had begun to retaliate against users of 
non-Microsoft browsers.The Opera browser I used was being 
specificaly excluded from MSN.com. Every time a browser connects to 
a server, it sends a string to the server telling it what type of 
browser is seeking access. When Microsoft saw an Opera browser it 
refused to let the browser load the page. The Opera developers tests 
showed that Ithe Opera identification string was changed by one 
letter, Microsoft would let the Opera browser in.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to tie its operating systemw, 
borwsers, and network together.
    Sincerely
    Rick Marvin




MTC-00003554

From: Larry LeClaire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It seems to me that if you have enough money you can get away 
with anything. This settlement seems to help microsoft against it`s 
only real competitors. the open source community which would make 
them more of a Monoply.




MTC-00003555

From: art_frame@mac.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:19pm
Subject: Why you`re being laughed at...
    Sirs:
    Have you wondered why the President has taken the prosecution of 
terrorists out of your hands and given it to the military? Maybe 
because your answer to the biggest computer terrorist organization 
in the world (Gates/Microsoft) is too slap him on the wrist and ask 
him nicely not to be a monopolist any more.
    It amazes me that you will suspend the Constitution for 
virtually everyone with a green card but you let some crooked geek 
with glasses get the better of you by just outlasting you and giving 
your bosses lots of campaign money.
    You deserve the ridicule that is heard around town and I can 
hardly wait until your incompetancy is replaced by a new 
administration and REAL lawyers who uphold ALL laws. Even the ones 
that aren`t politically correct or able to get them some cash if 
they ignore them.
    Remember the Constitution? Read it lately???????
    Ralph Arnold
    Canton, Ohio




MTC-00003556

From: Susie Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Seems like a $1b penalty for a company that overcharged 
consumers $30b and counting is about $29b short of justice. But at 
least get a real $1b. I completly agree with competitor Red Hat`s 
perspective that letting Microsoft `pay' for it`s fine 
by giving it`s own software to schools further entrenches their 
monopoly. Red Hat`s proposal (http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press_usschools.html), that Microsoft give 
$1b in hardware for which Red Hat will supply the software, sounds 
good to me. I mean, a monopoly is the problem, right? So what good 
does it do to distribute more monopoly software?
    My only problem with Red Hat`s proposal is that Microsoft should 
be made to pay $30b, not just $1b. Honestly the settlement amount 
makes it look yet again that our justice system is corruptible by 
the rich, be they individuals or corporations.
    Thanks for reading this, and good luck in continuing the 
prosecution.
    Ben Cooper
    2375 Riverglenn Circle
    Dunwoody Ga 30338
    770-455-9089




MTC-00003557

From: Joe Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:31pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the prospect of allowing Microsoft to pay its 
penalty in the anti trust case by donating ANY amount of software / 
hardware to schools. This action would only serve to PROMOTE the 
abuse of Microsoft`s monolopy position in the market the government 
and plaintiffs have worked so hard to expose.
    A better solution would be for Microsoft to make a CASH 
contribution to needy schools and charities or where possible, to 
the companies they actually hurt with their actions.
    Thank you for the pursuit of this case.
    Joe Spencer
    CC:CACC@yahoogroups.com@inetgw




MTC-00003558

From: pcolsen@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am very disappointed with the Microsoft settlement. As one who 
has tried to use non-Microsoft software, I think it is clear that 
Microsoft has an effective monopoly on the software industry.
    For example, many years ago I had a large investment in Digital 
Research`s DR-DOS. I had made this investment because was 
technically superior to MS-DOS in almost every respect.
    I was forced to abandon this investment when I needed to run an 
application requiring a graphical interface. I first attempted to 
run Microsoft Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS and found it wouldn`t work. When 
I called Microsoft`s Help Line, they refused to talk to me until I 
completely replaced DR-DOS with MS-DOS. It is now clear that the 
problem which prevented me from using DR-DOS was not a defect, but 
the result of Microsoft`s deliberate design decision made for the 
specific purpose of forcing me_and many others like 
me_to buy Microsoft products that we neither needed nor 
wanted.
    As an engineer, I have seen this repeated many times. Microsoft 
intentionally sells products that do not interoperate with others 
for the specific purpose of driving competitors out of the 
marketplace.
    I am disappointed in the settlement.
    Peter Olsen
    Peter Olsen, P.E., Ae.E.
    6904 Rawhide Ridge, Columbia, MD 21046




MTC-00003559

From: Doug Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom is may concern
    The current settlement as written is nothing more than a license 
to steal. Where, in this settlement is MS fined? Where are any 
penalties? Where is the known proven anti-trust behavior stopped?
    Nothing. Nothing in this decree address past behavior or future 
behavior. XP is not addressed. .NET is not addressed. MSIM is not 
addressed. IE is not addressed. Nothing. Nothing!
    Nothing. Absolutely nothing in this decree addresses the loss of 
inovation or encourages innovation.
    In 1994, we had an OS that used voice to navigate. In 2001, MS 
releases XP with this feature. It could have been released in 1995 
with WIn95 if there had been competition. Instead it is touted as a 
new feature in 2001. Why 6 years later than the first effort? 
Because no competition. Because the competitor had their hands tied, 
paying double what everyone else paid for the Win95 product because 
of their refusal. Where is this product now? Dead. Dead because MS 
killed it with an `upgrade` to their product. IBM. Sun. What is 
being done about their product being hijacked? Nothing to date. 
Nothing.
    Nothing. That defines this settlement that is not a settlement. 
Politics.
    Who pays the most.
    We have been ripped off by MS since the bogus messages 
programming in for DR DOS. We have not been given better choices. We 
have been `marketed' products in lieu of others that 
work better because of back room dealings more than technology and 
programs that work.
    The goverment made this legal in their last `consent 
decree' which gave MS a license to steal by including items in 
their `OS' and calling it required.
    This company has ruined innovation and put the US back 
5-10 years on the computing scene because of it.
    Do not let this current decree pass.
    MS should:
Release source code for ALL of Windows
Release source code for protocols
Release source for .NET requirements to fully implent their 
protocols and APIs

[[Page 24313]]

    Nothing less is nothing less that giving us no choice in the 
future of computing.
    Doug Glenn




MTC-00003560

From: John McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft `settlement'
    I remain appalled that that the DOJ has basically thrown in the 
towel concerning Microsoft. If this were a poker hand, it is as if 
DOJ had four aces and decided to fold.
    Why am I so upset about Microsoft? There are way too many 
reasons to begin to detail them all. Let`s just start with a few 
obvious(?) examples of the problems that Microsoft has created and 
continues to create.
    First, Microsoft does not provide access to API information at 
an equal level to competing products. A prime example is Corel 
WordPerfect. That particular word processor program was written 
without access to a number of key APIs. Without those key APIs, 
functionality was compromised considerably. The purpose for 
witholding specific API information can only be assumed to be due to 
a matter of `controlling' competition. Since Microsoft 
can develop applications with closer connections to the operating 
system, they >appear< to be better products.
    Second, in recent years, modems and printers have become 
specifically limited to being functional only with Microsoft. These 
devices are called winmodems and winprinters. They have had 
significant capability removed. In some cases, the price is not 
reduced to reflect the lower level of actual expense. Consumers pay 
for this redesign. I used to rally like USRobotics modems (now 
3Com). Several months ago, I purchased a 56K modem. I was deeply 
disappointed to learn that it was a revision 3 modem. The revision 0 
modem would have worked for me wonderfully, both with Windows and 
Linux. The revision 3 modem, on the other hand, only worked with 
Windows. The revision 3 modem was priced the same as the revision 0 
modem. The manufacturer was thus able to generate substantially more 
revenue (potentially) from a given sale. I sent the crippled modem 
back to the company that I purchased the thing from. I was out the 
money for the return of the useless modem. There is no excuse for 
such deceptive tactics. The company itself provided literature that 
states a level of functionality that no longer existed. Since the 
operating system needed to provide support for this useless device, 
it is obvious that Microsoft `communicated' with this 
vendor on design objectives. Microsoft is able to control product 
design with the intent of minimizing competition VERY effectively. 
An example of printer tampering works in the same manner. My aunt 
had to purchase a replacement printer. She was using a DOS 
application, at the time. The new printer, with a substantial price 
attached, no longer could print the simple text characters used by 
the DOS application. She was compelled to purchase new software, 
even though not needed, to use this lobotomized printer. My aunt at 
that time was on a fixed income and did not need the additional 
expense, but Microsoft and the printer company deserve the 
additional revenue. At least, that is the thought I am left with by 
the withdrawal of DOJ involvement.
    I can think of a large number of additional cases, with no 
difficulty at all. How fortunate for Microsoft that DOJ has given 
up, and indeed, apparently has no clue as to the true level of 
market manipulation excerised by Microsoft. During the 1930s, there 
was an investigation of Standard Oil. That company was broken up. 
When Standard Oil is compared to Microsoft, Standard Oil looks more 
like a mom and pop operation. Yet that company was broken up. 
Something is VERY wrong here. Just how many people have been bought 
off by Microsoft, anyway?
    If that last question seems harsh, perhaps it should be seen 
that way. A lot of people have to left with that conclusion. It has 
been said many time that money talks. Microsoft is the proof.
    John McKee
    1502 Bel Air Drive
    Junction City, Kansas 66441-1821




MTC-00003561

From: Bill McCroskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:10am
Subject: About the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    In reading the plan for the settlement, I see a great deal of 
plans for the problem with middleware, but it appears that Microsoft 
is being left to have a monopoly in the desktop operating system 
market. If they are allowed to force computer makers to sell all 
their computers with Windows if they sell any with Windows then this 
perpetuates the monopoly.
    There is no doubt they have a monopoly on the `operating 
system'. Look at how each new release of Windows was sold as 
`more reliable'_what a bill of goods! Name one 
other product on the market that proves as problematic for consumers 
as Windows. If there were fair competition, Microsoft would be out 
of business because people would go elsewhere. If you bought a 
BrandA car and it was rolling junk and 3 years later BrandA put out 
a new model touted as `more reliable' and you bought a 
new BrandA model and it also proved to be rolling junk. Would you 
buy BrandA again if BrandB was on the market and available to you on 
equal terms? No, you would not. Free enterprise, competition, and 
fair markets are what makes the system work.
    I am writing this e-mail on Linux. If I buy a new PC, it comes 
with my very own copy of Windows that I have paid for and can not 
buy the machine without. I then must go out and purchase an OS that 
works and throw away what I paid for that does not work as well.
    I do still have Windows on a second drive on the system because 
sadly there are some programs not available on the Linux platform 
due to the monopoly held by Microsoft in the Operating Systems. 
While this is slowly changing, It would change faster with a level 
playing field. If Windows is so good, it should be able to stand on 
its own merit in the market place and not have to stand on strongarm 
tactics to keep it in first place.
    Computer makers should be allowed to offer a computer sold with 
whatever operating system the customer wants. The fact that some 
portion get sold with some other system than Windows should be a 
signal to Microsoft to clean their house and not to try to crush the 
computer maker`s right to sell the competing product. That is just 
plain wrong. Another concern I have is about security. I am a 
software engineer and many of the `backdoor' security 
problems I see Microsoft having are not just a simple bug in terms 
of a mistake by a programmer. These backdoors are well engineered 
avenues into the system. One can only guess as to why they were put 
there.
    I am very concerned that these backdoor entry points to 
Microsoft Operating Systems represents a threat to national 
security. Many virus programs have exploited these paths. One can 
only imagine what would happen if these paths are exploited by 
terrorist groups. The closed nature of the Windows source code 
allows this sort of problem to remain hidden. Perhaps if nothing 
else, the DOD software people should have an audit of Microsoft`s 
code in their operating systems to ensure the security of our nation 
is not put at risk due to code that serves only Microsoft`s 
interests.
    William McCroskey




MTC-00003562

From: bettkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:21am
Subject: us govt. lawsuit against microsoft
    I think allowing microsoft to enter the educational field, is a 
huge mistake. I think the settlement as now proposed would be a huge 
reward instead of a penalty. apple has an excellent job in the 
school sector, now the govt. is going to assist microsoft in an 
effort to defranchise apple. i cannot understand this werid line of 
reasoning.
    h.d.ketterer
    bettkett@coastalnet.com




MTC-00003563

From: Malcolm Slaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my strong disappointment in the 
published Microsoft antitrust agreement.
    Most importantly, the agreement says that Microsoft must share 
its APIs with organizations that *Microsoft* judges to have viable 
business models. The world of software is not entirely driven by 
for-profit enterprises. Web service (Apache), operating systems 
(linux), file servers (samba), email routers (sendmail/postfix) and 
software compilers (gcc) all have very successful non-profit 
entries.
    The way the agreement is written, Microsoft can extend their 
monopoly by preventing free-software proponents from interacting 
with their software. This would be bad.
    At the very least the agreement should be modified to require 
Microsoft to publish *all* their software APIs *and* their file 
formats. This would allow interoperability within the entire 
software industry and would greatly enhance competition.

[[Page 24314]]

    Malcolm Slaney, PhD
    Los Altos Hills, CA 94022




MTC-00003564

From: Brian B. Canin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 2:04am
Subject: Microsoft ....
    I am not a politician, nor a zealot but a computer professional, 
an entrepreneur, and a 1/3rd owner of a multi-million dollar 
software company.
    I cannot comment on the fairness of the Microsoft anti-trust 
trial from a political point of view, or even a legal point of view. 
Especially as what is fair, ethical, or legal rarely sees the fair 
and correct remedy in our special interest only oriented political 
system. What I can say, for what it is worth, is that Microsoft has 
been an unfair, monopolistic, and terrible influence in the computer 
industry for over 20 years.
    I have never directly competed with Microsoft, but have been 
manipulated and pushed around like all computer professionals by the 
Microsoft company. It is great that the government is finally 
addressing some of the monopolistic excesses which Microsoft has 
perpetrated, and it would truly be a crime of unfairness for the 
government not to have the backbone to not follow through and 
actually enforce the rule of law. Make the country proud, at least 
those in the industry who understand, and act with the courage of 
your convictions.
    I have personally seen and been outraged at the following 
behaviors and actions. All of these are the actions of a competitor 
who enjoys the clout of a monopolist. In addition, these actions are 
not just monopolistic, they push envelope of how much abuse a 
company can achieve, all while tying our courts up and getting away 
with their grossly unfair actions with little or no penalties.
    1. Microsoft owns the languages, the operating system, and the 
most important applications. This triple monopoly is one of the 
worst of their offenses. They control the development of software, 
they only provide the hooks into their operating systems with these 
languages, and they fight tooth and nail to make sure that no other 
API`s other than their own exist in any of their languages. If there 
were other competitive operating systems that had been allowed to 
exist to date, and they had some of the desktop market share, AND 
most importantly Microsoft did not have a vested interest in the 
Windows operating system above all else, then Visual Studio would 
support other 0S`s and would not be the critical tool for OS 
squashing which it is.
    a. When you own the languages (Visual Studio) which support your 
operating systems only, you stifle all the work of all developers 
world wide. You are a fool in the current environment to develop for 
anything other than Windows (at least in desktop and user interface 
software). If you take another course, you are fighting a company 
which has been operating as a monopoly for almost 20 years now, and 
you will lose.
    b. When you own the operating systems (Windows), you control the 
desktop. When you control the desktop, you control almost every 
user`s computer out there. Because they control the API`s and change 
them frequently (with NO notice to anyone outside of their trusted 
partners who collude with them) anyone in competition to Windows is 
squashed.
    c. When you own the applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), you 
keep them completely locked. For example? Why does Microsoft not 
offer Word, Excel or PowerPoint for Linux? Or why did they not 
develop them for 0S/27 Because then these `killer apps' 
would cause those other OS`s to be useful. Microsoft MUST be 
separated into 3 companys. OS, Languages, and Applications. Here is 
why: If a new company owned Languages (Visual Studio), they would be 
required to open it up to support other operation systems. This 
would have been the case all along if Microsoft was not in the 
Operation system business. Now you could develop for Linux with the 
same power that you develop for Windows.
    If a new company only owned the applications, of course they 
would move them over to Linux and other OS`s which would come along. 
Why would they not support all those other customers?
    If a new company owned the Operating systems, they would not 
have the power with the languages and apps to control the market.
    2. Microsoft applications keep their data closed. You can import 
into Microsoft, but when you try to read an Office file into another 
program, it does not work. Why? Because Microsoft keeps their data 
secret.
    It may be your letter or spreadsheet, but for 20 years they only 
import, not export. This is arrogance of the first degree and could 
only be done by a monopolist.
    3. Microsoft gave cheap pricing to hardware manufacturers as 
long as they paid for a license for EVERY computer they made. I am 
amazed at the absolute arrogance of this action. How more 
monopolistic could you be! Microsoft closed the door on even the 
possibility for another OS to make it. Imagine a company which made 
1,000,000 computers. If they put Windows on all 1,000,000 they paid 
205 each. If they put Windows on 999,999 and Linux on 1 computer, 
they paid 1005 on each OS! This isn`t just criminal, it makes the US 
government look like people being paid to look the other way!
    Even after they were censured for this, where were the punitive 
damages? What about giving up 3/4 of their revenue for the next 10 
years to reverse this incredible abuse of power! What they got away 
with for years shows that any company which engages in this kind of 
behavior risks nothing at all.
    4. Microsoft wants it all. There is almost not a single vertical 
market or slice of technology which Microsoft does not own, wants to 
own, or is controlling. If they can`t steal your concept, they try 
to buy you out. If they can`t buy you out they underprice you. If 
you are in a market which they didn`t notice and they don`t have a 
presence in your market, they make an announcement that they have 
remarkable technology coming out in your market. This causes all 
venture to dry up and flee because no one in their right mind would 
try to spend money in a market which Microsoft is going in to? Thus 
your excellent technology gets destroyed by Microsoft`s VAPORWARE! 
They now control your market with NO PRODUCT. This gives them all 
the time in the world to take their invisible product and turn it 
into something, usually at a much lower level of competence.
    5. Microsoft has inferior technology. Microsoft is not known in 
the industry as a good technology company. For 20 years they pushed 
complete garbage on the public. Currently, their software is pretty 
good, and especially hard to knock out of the drivers seat. But this 
is because they have had 20 years to get their act together. Mission 
number one at Microsoft is the destruction of everything of value 
around them. Their technology then fills the vacuum. It`s not hard 
to get your software working after 2 decades when you have destroyed 
the competition with everything BUT good technology. What Microsoft 
is, is a MARKETING company. Don`t get me wrong, I am high-tech 
salesperson and believe that marketing and business is the MOST 
important thing in this business. But don`t use marketing to destroy 
the competition, while you bring inferior software to market? This 
is monopolistic behavior. If each individual software system of 
Microsoft`s stood on their own, lets say each was owned by an 
independent company, these companies would not exist today. The 
software takes years and years to not crash, to work correctly ,etc. 
Microsoft Access version 1.0 was not even a product which ran. But 
it killed the Borland purchase of DBASE, because it sold for $99.00 
and the world was afraid to get behind the $495 working system! 
After destroying the competition with marketing and other 
monopolistic behavior, and a whole lot of years, it has become the 
mediocre software it is today. In conclusion I would like to state 
the following. It is very hard to get a layman to understand how 
much the monopoly of Microsoft has affected the world of technology 
and how much their abuses have hurt so many individuals and 
companies. The cost to the consumer is even harder to explain. We 
live in a Microsoft dominated world. Innovation only exists in the 
vacuum of markets which people are not afraid to enter, and if they 
get too big, Microsoft jumps in and destroys them.
    Come on already. Take some action. Fix what has happened so far 
and let all the companies of the world have a chance to compete. 
Imagine the gains technology and society could have made if 
Microsoft had been broken up 10 years ago!
    Brian B. Canin
    4958 Concannon Court
    San Diego, CA 92130
    (858) 523-0375




MTC-00003565

From: Allen Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement the the DOJ and 9 states have agreed 
upon. I believe that this wil help the economy and that it is best 
for this country.
    Allen Davis




MTC-00003566

From: Carlos Filipe Zambujo Lopes Pereira

[[Page 24315]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:40am
Subject: Redhat proposal
    Dear sirs,
    I think that the proposal Redhat has suggested regarding the 
remedies that should be applied to Microsoft, points to a very 
important issue: deployment of Microsoft only software in schools 
around the US will only consolidate their monopoly on the desktop 
and make considerable inroads in the server area. In the end, it 
would turn out to be the opposite of a penalty.
    Regards,
    Carlos
    P.S.: Although I am not a US citizen, Microsoft`s monopolistic 
practices are felt all over the world, and maybe more so here in 
Portugal than even in the US.




MTC-00003567

From: foodog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I just found out about comments being solicited or I would have 
spoken when the terms of the judgement were made public. I`ve been a 
computing professional for more than 15 years and am intimately 
familiar with the issues and history. I have kept current with the 
case throughout. The penalties `imposed' on Microsoft 
are a farce beyond belief. Microsoft has been told to continue with 
business as usual.
    In my wildest dreams I never thought that Microsoft`s own 
lawyers would write the judgement. It`s laughable; there are no 
penalties and no remedies. Zip, nada. There are even new legal 
protections to help nurture the monopoly! MS is specifically allowed 
to keep protocols and APIs secret if they have to do with 
authentication. Do you even know what `authentication' 
is? How in the world can another company or operating system compete 
at all if they can`t even authenticate on the network? I fully 
expect that the DMCA will be `vigorously' used to 
prosecute any entities that attempt to reverse engineer Microsoft`s 
protocols to compete.
    No penalty or remedy was imposed, not even a token $1.00 
judgement in damages. The DOJ has destroyed any belief that justice 
can prevail. I still have a dim hope that the holdout states can 
achieve some token remedy, such as forcing the documentation of MS 
Office file formats and Windows APIs. I`m not holding my breath, 
since the United States Department of Justice has *so* obviously 
been bought and paid for. The resolution of the Microsoft Monopoly 
case is a national shame.
    There`s just no other way to say it.
    Steven W. Smith
    Systems Programmer II
    Glendale Community College. Glendale, AZ.
    steve.smith@gcmail.maricopa.edu




MTC-00003568

From: Michael Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:04am
Subject: Microsoft
    Something needs to be done about Microsoft. The settlement in 
unacceptable. Microsoft does not own my system and my computers. 
They have no right to control the whole interne t.




MTC-00003569

From: Juan Valencia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly and unequivocally disagree with the Microsoft 
settlement. The Department of Justice has already proven in court 
that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly, and that it used its 
monopolistic powers to influence competition and vendors. Yet, the 
proposed settlement encourages Microsoft to donate software and 
hardware in the one single market in which they do not have a 
monopoly. This will, in effect terminate any sense of choice these 
schools may have had. Why can`t Microsoft simply pay out its penalty 
in cash and let the schools decide how to spend their money. Is that 
not what our current President told us when he was running for 
office?
    Juan Valencia




MTC-00003570

From: rajesh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:30am
Subject: Dear Sir,
    Dear Sir,
    For all the monopolistic attitude of Microsoft and the proposed 
`settlement' is a joke for the millions of users. With 
the donation of software to schools as `payment' 
Microsoft would actually be taking away market share from other 
vendors and building a stronger monopolistic position. The real cost 
to them for the settlement is ZERO. Market value of the software has 
no meaning here.
    We the people may be dumb but we aint stupid. The settlement 
reeks of favoritism. In the name of `justice' you will 
actually be wiping out a good many companies and their future.
    WHY are you treating Microsoft as `above the law'. 
Change of Government = Change of heart? that too from the Justice 
system? What message are you sending to the world?
    Regards
    Rajesh Motwani




MTC-00003571

From: Jeff Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti Trust case 
is completly unacceptable. Microsoft my open it`s sourcecode and 
API`s to any business (for profit or not for profit).
    In addition, Microsoft must be punished for it`s monopolistic 
ways. Giving out software is not an option. It MUST give something 
that can be used such as CASH!
    This settlement is entirely unacceptable and I expect the US 
Justice Dept. the come up with a REAL solution to the microsoft 
problem.




MTC-00003572

From: john clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is too lenient and soesn`t build in 
enough safeguards to prevent a repeat of their anti-competitive 
behavior.
    Sincerely,
    John Clark
    38 Gedney Circle
    White Plains NY 10605




MTC-00003573

From: wg@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Bill Gates must have howled with laughter when this came out. 
The required donation of free software is ridiculous because:
    1. Software costs them almost nothing to produce.
    2. It will strengthen their foothold in the education market, 
one of the last where they aren`t dominant.
    Microsoft should be required to keep Windows separate from 
applications and to provide complete descriptions of all O.S. 
interfaces.
    Warren Gibson
    P. O. Box 88
    San Carlos, CA 94070




MTC-00003574

From: Frank Schreck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:00am
Subject: sanctions
    dear ladies and gentlemen, you asked for for users 
opion_here is mine:
    the nine states longing for stronger restrictions are absolutely 
right. as you might see, i am writing this mail in ms outlook. i am 
not doing this because i like the programm but because of 
uncontrollable system-failures by using netscape.
    the interchangeiability of the ms office formats that can not be 
reached by other programs (e.g. sun`s staroffice) forced me to buy 
the very expensive ms office... thank you for your interest,
    Frank Schreck,
    Heidelberg / Germany




MTC-00003575

From: R.G. Mayhue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:12am
Subject: This ruling is appalling!!
    Big business wins again!
    So this is how the Bush administration and the DOJ is going to 
handle this? Those crooks at Microsoft have been monopolizing an 
entire industry for years and FINALLY when they get hauled into 
federal court and FOUND GUILTY, after millions of dollars spent on 
the case, they have to pay practically no price at all of their 
actions! As I said. Appalling!!
    BIG MONEY WINS AGAIN!!!
    Microsoft`s licensing practices alone make it certain that no 
other operating system will ever stand a chance in making inroads on 
the desktops of America. Microsoft will not stand for just a piece 
of the pie.....THEY WANT THE WHOLE DAMN THING!!
    When the security of the entire nation is at risk (well 
heck.....it is now) due to viruses and the Microsoft monopoly, I 
hope the Bush

[[Page 24316]]

 administration and the DOJ will stand up and take FULL 
RESPONSIBILITY for this atrocity!
    P.S. No more votes for the people who put you in office!!
    R.G. Mayhue
    r.g.mayhue@verizon.net



MTC-00003576

From: Ken Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, for full disclosure, I am a Microsoft employee. Yes, I 
have personal a stake in this decision, and I`m sure our critics 
would say I have no right to comment because of that. But I am also 
a US citizen and tax payer. And because I`m here, on the inside so 
to speak, I know what I read in the news about Microsoft is bunk. We 
are not mad people interested in dominating the world economy as our 
competitors like to say. We`re just average folk. We have kids and 
hs, and dreams. We want America to be best it can be. We want our 
kids to have a future, where fairness and work are still American 
virtues.
    For the past few years, I have felt like I`ve been living in the 
Soviet Union of the 60`s. My own government was attacking me and my 
family. Finally things have changed and the DOJ has regained some 
sanity. Please don`t let Sun, Oracle and AOL poison the first 
positive steps to get beyond this mess. They are not motivated to 
compete on price, quality or features as long as they enjoy 
government protection. If they want to remain competitive then make 
them do it the way we do it every day of every week_through 
hard work.




MTC-00003577

From: Fred Ferraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:25am
Subject: microsoft
    I am a consumer that has bought 4 computers in the last 8 years. 
I am very satisfied with the software I`ve gotten from Microsoft and 
the ease with which it works. I also use AOL. If someone wants a 
different piece of software on their computer that is their business 
and no one is stopping them from adding anything. Enough with this 
constant harrassement of Microsoft, you had your shot. These 9 
states whinning again about Microsoft are after two things, money 
and to get their names in the paper.They are frauds. No one is 
forcing anybody to buy anything. Enough, Enough, Enough. This 
country has alot more to worry about that what West Virginia wants. 
Enough! Fred Ferraro Bend, Oregon




MTC-00003578

From: Larry J. Linder
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 12/9/01 11:34am
Subject: Anti Trust_shake down continues
    Dear Sir:
    I own a small business that is a Engineering design development 
company that specializes in developing special software and hardware 
for industrial customers.
    There are several serious issues at hand.
    1. From an outside prospective it looks like the Bush 
Administration and the DOJ have been bought off. Decision paid for 
and given. The first judge, Johnson, had it correct and had the 
correct decision.
    Now I will tell you why we think he was correct. In 
Chronological order. In the late 80 we were developing several new 
products based on the then current MicroSoft backed software. We 
went to the development conferences and listed as MicroSoft was 
preaching one one thing to independent developers and in side 
getting ready to blind side us with it new Windows release. Looking 
back the meeting were filled with miss information and down right 
lies. As a result we have avoided developing any software that runs 
on a Microsoft platform. A bitter and costly lesson to us, such 
practices stifled the development of several medical applications.
    Next product to be developed was a very advanced hearing aid 
that would offer an major technical leap forward in hearing aid 
technology. Because of our last experience with MicroSoft we decided 
to use OS/2 for this system. Microsoft pressured IBM to cease 
supporting OS/2 or they would cut off the availability of IBM to 
acquire Microsoft licensed software. They rolled over and died. This 
left us with years of development and thousands of dollars invested 
for nothing. That is how the monopolistic vices of Microsoft 
devastate the developer and hinder or keeps new products from the 
open market.
    Microsofts bid to take over the internet and if you don`t run a 
Microsoft OS the internet will be closed to you. Since the DOJ buy 
off we have seen an increasingly number of sites that you are denied 
access to. E-Mail that you cannot read because it has imbedded 
MicroSoft stuff that is not compatible with other systems. At 
present if you follow your plan the internet will be 100 % Microsoft 
in as little as two years and certainly in 3 years. All other 
participants will be frozen out. This is not a prediction but a 
comment from an Microsoft insider engineer to engineer.
    Why am I writing you is because of a threateningly phone call I 
received the other day from a Microsoft lawyer who asked to speak to 
the owner of the company.
    He asked us if we were using any Microsoft products and that if 
we were we could be a target for a Microsoft legal action if we 
didn`t sign up to buy the new OS from Microsoft. This is the shake 
down.
    Fortunately we use Linux Red Had on our desk tops and Servers, 
told him that and it was sort of the end of the conversation. He 
also indicated that it might interfere with our ability to purchase 
Microsoft products for use on some customer`s systems.
    At this point I told him that what we do in the business world 
is no business of Microsoft and the conversation was 
terminated._Good By.
    Other practices that have surfaced and we have documented.
    We have been approached by the city where our business is 
located and asked if there is any alternative to breaking the Cities 
budget by upgrading to the new Microsoft OS. There is no such thing 
as a site license but they have to buy a new OS for every computer 
the City owns. We told them that if the DOJ maintains it present 
course then they should plan on putting a 250,000 line item in the 
budget for Microsoft. If the DOJ were to break up Microsoft then 
things would be different. We have a customer who bought a new Dell 
computer that ran the new Microsoft OS and he decided that it didn`t 
meet his performance need and wanted us to build him a special 
system that would meet his need for video editing. He wanted to use 
his current software and transfer it to his new system, format the 
old systems hard disk and put it on E-Bay. When we complied with his 
wishes we found that it would not finish booting because the BIOS 
was tied into the operating system and it would only run on his old 
system.
    He was not informed or warned of this practice and had to buy 
another copy of the Microsoft OS to get his new system up and 
running even thought he currently owned it. Hello MAFIA are you 
listening.
    We are finding that Microsoft in pressuring processor builder to 
build in Microsoft only features that will make other systems slow 
or not compatible with the new processors. Once the compilers are 
Microsoft only they will literally own the whole computer industry. 
Just look at the ES processor from AMD. What the DOJ needs to do. 
The internet must be powered by a federally mandated minimum set of 
software that is compliant with all OS`s. The National Bureau of 
Standards it uniquely suited for this duty.
    Microsoft should be prohibited from making deals with hardware 
vendors to customize everything to Microsoft specifications. 
Basically Microsoft as a minimum should be prevented from 
influencing hardware design.
    The Microsoft OS and Application software must be separated and 
physically moved where one part is on the West cost and the other is 
on the East cost. All middle ware for the OS must be available to 
the whole community at the same time and not as it exists today 
where the Application developers have years of advance information 
and it becomes available only after Microsoft releases a new OS and 
immediately release a new business suite that is not backward 
compatible with anything including older Microsoft products. 
Microsoft should be prohibited from giving any hardware and software 
to any institution. The hardware if given must be loaded with a non 
Microsoft OS and applications. The implications of what the DOJ is 
planning or has agreed to only strengthens Microsoft`s hand in 
controlling the entire US computer market. The US government 
agencies should all use something other than Microsoft OS`s as a 
start.
    If the legal system fails the business and citizens and fails to 
break up Microsoft the future of the technical development of 
alternative systems and the free enterprise system that used to 
exist in the US will be gone. Once there is no alternative the US 
Citizen, City, State and Federal Government will be held hostage by 
Microsoft and when ever Bill Gates need some money he will upgrade 
the Microsoft monopoly and you will all pay or do 
without_there will be no alternative.
    From a small business owner prespective. It looks like Bill 
Gates bought the present

[[Page 24317]]

administration including the DOJ and several Judges.
    Respectfully submitted
    Larry J. Linder
    Principal Engineer_CEO
    MicroControls
    Xenia, Ohio




MTC-00003579

From: DSAILERO@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE lets finish this. Tell California to stop resisting.




MTC-00003580

From: Howard Salis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice of the United States of America:
    As per the Tunney Act, I wish to input my two cents regarding 
the recent proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Any 
person or organization that owns a license of any Microsoft 
operating system should have the right to effectively and 
effeciently program applications for use on that operating system. 
This requires full and extensive knowledge of the use of APIs that 
form the interface between all applications and the operating 
system. This entails having the knowledge of the existence of all 
prior and future APIs on a Microsoft operating system and the method 
of their use.
    Currently, the wording in the current settlement leaves out many 
organizations that do not make a profit off their work. Non-profit 
organizations have the same rights, concerning the use of purchased 
software, as their for-profit counterparts in the computer industry. 
This should be rather common sense and if current law statutes 
conflict then they should be examined and amended.
    I am a U.S citizen.
    Howard Salis




MTC-00003581

From: donius@host.warwick.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:30pm
Subject: Settlement
    I really must wonder at what point the government is going to 
protect us from this monopoly.
    The first thing is that I believe Microsoft should not be broken 
up. They make good software, and the company`s demise would be 
unforunate. The second suggestion I heard at one time was making 
them open source their code. Although I prefer open source software 
myself, I think it is rediculous to not allow corporate secrets.
    I suggest that the `coding' of files be required to 
be registered in the Library of Congress for all computer files. If 
Microsoft makes a better word processor, fine.
    But to lock up the way the resultant data files are written and 
read with a given platform is wrong. Let it be that the programming 
code for the program is their trade secret, but the way the data 
file is written is in the public domain. This way if company 
`Z' chose to create a competing word processor, it would 
be able to compete by being able to accurately interpert other 
programs output files.
    This idea is in my mind the one solution that opens up 
competition, and takes nothing away from innovation. In fact it 
should increase innovation, because now a company`s product would 
actually have to perform better in order to sell.
    As for the rediculous concept of a punishment being to increase 
their infiltration further, locking in even more people to their own 
products, while not actually costing the company anything , I would 
love to know who came up with that idea. Your department really does 
not seem to understand what the root of this whole problem is. They 
own like 92% of the market, and their punishment is increasing it to 
96%? Please do not use increasing a monopoly`s reach as a way to 
punish them.
    Donald Wilson
    17 Snufftown rd.
    Goshen NY 10924
    wilson@warwick.net




MTC-00003582

From: burt@sushi.toad.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    The settlement proposal does not solve the primary problem: 
Microsoft`s behavior does not change, however, under this proposal, 
it merely pays a licensing fee so that it can continue to violate 
the law.
    Microsoft must be forced into making the environment more open 
to competition. I would like to see the following added to the 
proposal.
    No computer system can be sold with Microsoft`s operating 
system, unless it comes with a second non-Microsoft operating system 
install. The market place can determine what it will be (There is 
Linux and BSD operating systems available.) If it is an open-source 
operating system, then it will come at no cost to the consumer.
    Microsoft must modify its software so that if the consumer must 
recover the Windows operating system, the recover process does not 
assume it will have the entire disk for itself.
    (That little trick makes sure that no other operating can 
survive while making it more difficult for people to backup their 
systems.)
    Additional, consumers must have the right to buy a system 
without Microsoft Windows install and not have to pay a kick-back to 
Microsoft in the process. There are many people who do not want 
Microsoft windows.
    Gary L. Burt
    Lecturer
    CS/EE Department
    UMBC
    burt@csee.umbc.edu
    1000 Hilltop Circle
    Baltimore, MD 21250




MTC-00003583

From: Kedar Soman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:41pm
Subject: Current ruling will not curb microsoft bad practices
    Dear Madam / sir,
    I sincerely believe that the microsoft ruling is not going to 
achieve the main goal of stopping microsoft from following antitrust 
policies. Over the years the company has grown into giant, but still 
it`s greed is not fulfilled. It`s greed was healthy at one time and 
the company expanded by making quality products like MS office. But 
recently they have stopped making quality products and started these 
kind of strategies to make money. The current ruling, in my opinion, 
does not do anything to stop these practices. This again allows 
microsoft to propogate their own softwares which means ultimately in 
microsoft interest. So this is not punishment for microsoft, but 
blessing.
    Thanks for letting me write,
    Kedar Soman




MTC-00003584

From: Tim Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    Any settlement with Microsoft must include remedies to correct 
Microsoft`s abuse of its monopoly position as well as sanctions to 
prevent future violations of antitrust law.
    End users suffer injury from the existing monopoly because of 
Microsoft`s effort to exclude competition of any kind in the 
software business. Competition is essential in any non-regulated 
business to provide the best quality products at the lowest prices 
to the end user. Microsoft`s current position in software is not 
that much different than the position Standard Oil Company held at 
the turn of the 20th century.
    Any settlement with Microsoft must include measures to allow 
competition in the software business. These measures should include 
allowing computer manufacturers and distributors to load other 
operating systems alongside MS-Windows to provide the end user with 
a choice. Current licensing restrictions from Microsoft prohibit 
this, and for anticompetitive reasons, these and similar 
restrictions must be struck down as unlawful.
    Microsoft`s offer to give away their software products to 
schools will actually spread the same monopoly that brought about 
legal action in the first case. A more appropriate action would be 
Microsoft providing the funding for schools to buy software of their 
choice. Microsoft already has a monopoly position in business 
application software, and allowing it to build a monopoly in the 
educational market will do great harm in a sector already strapped 
for funding.
    If the Court does not break up Microsoft in the same fashion 
that Standard Oil and AT&T-Bell System were broken up, then 
other measures must be taken to allow competition back into this 
marketplace. The end user has been robbed of his freedom of choice, 
and the Court must restore freedom of choice to the software market, 
especially in light of the fact that the Court has established that 
Microsoft operates as a monopoly, and it has operated unlawfully to 
maintain its monopoly position.
    This monopoly must either be broken up like the Standard Oil and 
Bell System monopolies, or regulated in the same fashion as a public 
utility. History has shown that the public benefited highly from 
breaking up monopolistic firms. The telecommunications

[[Page 24318]]

boom would not have occurred under the old Bell System, and the 
energy market would be very different had Standard Oil been left 
intact.
    Evidence exists to show that significant innovation in software 
products has been stifled and suppressed by Microsoft. There is 
currently no indication that this will stop, and for that reason, 
Microsoft should be split into two or three companies: and operating 
system company, an applications software company, and an Internet 
software company. Collecting fines and compulsory donations to 
schools and charities has no deterrent effect against Microsoft 
continuing to violate the law and abuse its monopoly position.
    Regards,
    William T. Wright




MTC-00003585

From: DanielJuroff@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:49pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Corp.
    I am writing to register my displeasure with the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation in the anti-monopoly suit that 
has been pending now for so many years. Having found Microsoft to be 
a monopoly, it appeared that the trial Court had opened the door for 
sweeping corrections to the business practices of a company that has 
always placed its `bottom line' over the interests of 
consumers and business partners alike. It appears now that the 
Department of Justice has decided to take the role of 
`protector of the economy' (as though they were actually 
qualified to do that), rather than proceed with sanctions against 
Microsoft based on the merits of the case, by watering down its 
position on the basis of the impact it might have on the economic 
climate.
    It seems that Microsoft has already had a negative impact on the 
economy by stifling fair competition, contributing to the failures 
of some businesses, and over-charging customers for its products. 
Moreover, Microsoft has produced faulty software that requires 
almost limitless patching and updating to ensure functionality and 
security, while discouraging the development of meaningful 
alternative operating systems by unfairly bringing its influence to 
bear on competition in the market place. In the meantime, Microsoft 
has introduced each new operating system as though it were 
`the best thing since sliced bread,' but has really 
introduced only minor improvements, with most of the focus being on 
incorporating the patches and fixes to the previous version into the 
new one, then selling it over again as a `new' product.
    The agreement sanctioned by the DOJ is a slap on the wrist of 
Microsoft, and permits the monopoly to continue unabated, as 
evidenced by the release of an even more proprietary operating 
system in the form of Windows XP. I`d like to know how it was 
possible for the DOJ to go from a position of breaking up the 
company, to a position of doing almost nothing at all. Surely there 
is more to it than honest concern for the economy, since Microsoft 
has never been the fulcrum of the economy in the past.
    I sincerely hope that the nine states and the District of 
Columbia holding out for stronger sanctions and safeguards are 
successful in their attempt to shape the final judgement in this 
matter. They obviously have the true interests of the consumers 
(i.e., voters) and the long-term health of the economy at heart.




MTC-00003586

From: David Hirst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 12:55pm
Subject: Some comments....
    I can only hope and pray that wiser and more just minds review 
the ruling! Some comment and further short readings....
    From: http://www.macobserver.com/columns/nameofthegame/2001/
20011129.shtml
    (my comments in parenthesis)
    Gary: First, you must understand that Microsoft has absolutely 
committed crimes to enforce their monopoly power. This is why they 
are willing to settle these class action lawsuits for what appears 
to be such a lot of money. Microsoft understands that it will have 
to pay a hefty amount of money, no matter what.
    Randy: So, it tries to pay off the trial attorneys with as yet 
undetermined attorney fees, and dupe the public with promises of 
computers and software to kids, as opposed to real money to the 
actual plaintiffs in the case. There is no way that this would ever 
cost Microsoft even close to $1 billion. These days it isn`t hard to 
find a `refurbed' computer for less than $50 bucks.
    Randy: A better solution would be to make Microsoft buy $1 
billion (per year for 5 years) worth of competitors` products for 
these schools. Seems like a reasonable punishment for an illegal 
monopoly. Nothing would pop more zits on Bill Gates` forehead than 
having to buy 25,000 iMacs! (or better for five years)
    Gary: If nothing else, make Microsoft deposit money into a 
technology fund for these schools. $1 billion (per year!) over five 
years. Then let the schools decide what to spend that money on 
without any more involvement from Microsoft. It is clear that by 
proposing this settlement, that Microsoft has learned nothing and is 
thumbing its nose at the government and the consumer alike.
    Making them pay out over five years would allow students to 
REALLY build a foundation of knowledge and use, while keeping the 
technology current. It would also be at least a somewhat meaningful 
punishment for the CRIMES that MS has perpetrated on the American 
public rather than the soft slaps on the wrist that MS has gotten 
away with in the past.
    Sincerely,
    David R, Hirst
    P.O. Box 898
    Tacoma, WA 98401-0898




MTC-00003587

From: lee2@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Final Settlement
    This is a weak, weak, settlement. First of all, Microsoft enjoys 
it`s current market position in large part due to past anti-
competitive activities, which gives Microsoft an unfair market 
advantage even if they were to cease all such objectionable activity 
immediately. Competing operating systems will consequently continue 
to suffer an unfair disadvantage if the settlement is to be solely a 
conduct remedy. If you want a truly competitive marketplace, you 
should split Microsoft into two companies, one for the OS and one 
for the applications. This would force Microsoft to port it`s 
applications (such as MS Office) to alternative OSs such as Linux 
and Unix, effectively ending Microsoft`s stranglehold on the desktop 
market. If you must limit yourselves to conduct remedies, then 
please at least require Microsoft to port their office suites and 
media players to the competing OSs. Also, ensure that Microsoft`s OS 
will continue to be Java-compatible, and compatible with emulators 
such as WINE, WinForLin, etc. Otherwise, Microsoft will continue to 
enjoy an unfair advantage due to their past anti-competitive 
behavior.
    You should also consider that given Microsoft`s track record of 
unscrupulous conduct, any conduct remedy will require that you keep 
them under extremely close and continuous scrutiny, and will need to 
allocate a large staff and massive resources to do so effectively.
    Really, you should have broken Microsoft up.
    Lee Einer
    http://www.members.home.net/appealsman




MTC-00003588

From: Thomas Fitchette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ongoing 
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
    My opinion as a citizen working in the higher education system 
and with a significant exposure to technical issues and technologies 
themselves, is that the government was right in part in pursuing 
judgement against Microsoft on certain business practices, whereas a 
remedy on restricting some of those normal business practices for a 
period of time to let the market correct itself_as it has been 
the case over the last several years with business to business 
solutions, and a one time settlement ranging between one (1) to five 
(5) billion dollars to be distributed to technology poor educational 
systems (K-12) seems proper and reasonable. In light of the 
favor that the latter creates for the defendant, I would recommend 
that the education remedy be revised that so that it is strictly a 
monetary penalty, whereas school districts should employ whatever 
allocation methods they deem or have consulted as necessary within 
their need base. Otherwise, the placement of Microsoft technologies 
and peripheral services is more of an awards package to Microsoft 
than a punishment.
    As for consumer harm, as a computer and technologies user who 
has had opportunities to try other operating systems, other web 
technologies, and multi-platform solutions, I have felt either 
little to no harm by Microsoft`s business practices. In most cases, 
whereas business did not dictate a solution, I have freely chosen a 
Microsoft solution because it was advantageous within the

[[Page 24319]]

situation(s) at hand. In other cases, a non-Microsoft product has 
been chosen on the same merits of being the best tool for the job. 
Minus the monopoly status, I see no distinct differences between 
Microsoft practices and the practices of the competitors that have 
been friends of the court and would-be plaintiffs. I`ve seen 
solutions come and go on the value and shortcomings of their own 
making, not always on the tactics of a competitor. In any market, 
being a mediocre competitor is just being a mediocre competitor, 
inclusive of how well one presents themselves to consumers. Yet, I 
perceive that a number of rivals would seek the law as a mechanism, 
a business practice to hobble their competitors, such as the case 
with some patent and copyright suits. It isn`t about the law, it`s 
about business 101, and the court as a competition tool.
    My position on Netscape and its products was that it made 
popular and mainstream a technology that others already were using, 
(some free browsers existed at the time as well as commercial), did 
it well, but performed even better going head-to-head against 
Microsoft. Being in the education field, we never had to pay for web 
browsers to begin with as part of the licensing agreements set forth 
by those companies, inclusive of staff, faculty, and students, many 
of which transferred the same technologies to home computers. Both 
Netscape and Internet Explorer had strengths and shortcomings, but I 
have used both browsers even before the limitation in harddrive 
sizes was no longer a restrictive factor. I prefer Internet Explorer 
based on ease of use, features included in the browser and 
reliability.
    My position on Netscape`s market share loss is that the company 
that purchased it, AOL (now AOL Time Warner) had ample opportunity 
and financial means to reverse, if not stop, the decline of the 
Netscape browser and services, but publicly made no visible 
contributions to elevating the product instead saturating the market 
with its internet service promotions. To me, it has seemed a 
convenient time, (the litigation process against Microsoft), that a 
competitive product was given little to no promotion or distribution 
through the owners own internet service program America Online which 
successfully seeded consumer households with compact discs of the 
ISP software making them arguably the single largest commercial 
internet provider. I am of the opinion that competitors like AOL, 
Sun, Oracle, etc., were purposely creating allowing perceptions of 
barriers to markets by temporarily holding back on announcing plans 
and delaying or quietly releasing competitive products in order to 
give weight to claims in the antitrust case which they would have 
hoped to concluded much sooner than the time frame that has come to 
pass. At the time, the stock market was riding high and companies 
could afford to use such delay tactics in hopes of Microsoft being 
crippled by an antitrust judgement.
    So I would implore the court to seek out the views and opinions 
of more than just the vocal political and business players in this 
case. The case has been highly political. This opportunity to 
express my views has been the only government solicitation of 
whether I believe to have been harmed by Microsoft`s business 
practices, and I wish to not have the case be the cause of consumer 
harm, which is why I never supported the court ordered breakup of 
the company (which isn`t a bad solution for the company), but 
offered little to no protection of the breakups from the competitors 
who have worked well together to litigate against Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Thomas Earl Fitchette
    tefitche@saturn.vcu.edu
    Richmond, Virginia




MTC-00003589

From: Thomas Fitchette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the ongoing 
Microsoft Antitrust Settlement.
    My opinion as a citizen working in the higher education system 
and with a significant exposure to technical issues and technologies 
themselves, is that the government was right in part in pursuing 
judgement against Microsoft on certain business practices, whereas a 
remedy on restricting some of those normal business practices for a 
period of time to let the market correct itself_as it has been 
the case over the last several years with business to business 
solutions, and a one time settlement ranging between one (1) to five 
(5) billion dollars to be distributed to technology poor educational 
systems (K-12) seems proper and reasonable. In light of the 
favor that the latter creates for the defendant, I would recommend 
that the education remedy be revised that so that it is strictly a 
monetary penalty, whereas school districts should employ whatever 
allocation methods they deem or have consulted as necessary within 
their need base. Otherwise, the placement of Microsoft technologies 
and peripheral services is more of an awards package to Microsoft 
than a punishment.
    As for consumer harm, as a computer and technologies user who 
has had opportunities to try other operating systems, other web 
technologies, and multi-platform solutions, I have felt either 
little to no harm by Microsoft`s business practices. In most cases, 
whereas business did not dictate a solution, I have freely chosen a 
Microsoft solution because it was advantageous within the 
situation(s) at hand. In other cases, a non-Microsoft product has 
been chosen on the same merits of being the best tool for the job. 
Minus the monopoly status, I see no distinct differences between 
Microsoft practices and the practices of the competitors that have 
been friends of the court and would-be plaintiffs. I`ve seen 
solutions come and go on the value and shortcomings of their own 
making, not always on the tactics of a competitor. In any market, 
being a mediocre competitor is just being a mediocre competitor, 
inclusive of how well one presents themselves to consumers. Yet, I 
perceive that a number of rivals would seek the law as a mechanism, 
a business practice to hobble their competitors, such as the case 
with some patent and copyright suits. It isn`t about the law, it`s 
about business 101, and the court as a competition tool.
    My position on Netscape and its products was that it made 
popular and mainstream a technology that others already were using, 
(some free browsers existed at the time as well as commercial), did 
it well, but performed even better going head-to-head against 
Microsoft. Being in the education field, we never had to pay for web 
browsers to begin with as part of the licensing agreements set forth 
by those companies, inclusive of staff, faculty, and students, many 
of which transferred the same technologies to home computers. Both 
Netscape and Internet Explorer had strengths and shortcomings, but I 
have used both browsers even before the limitation in harddrive 
sizes was no longer a restrictive factor. I prefer Internet Explorer 
based on ease of use, features included in the browser and 
reliability.
    My position on Netscape`s market share loss is that the company 
that purchased it, AOL (now AOL Time Warner) had ample opportunity 
and financial means to reverse, if not stop, the decline of the 
Netscape browser and services, but publicly made no visible 
contributions to elevating the product instead saturating the market 
with its internet service promotions. To me, it has seemed a 
convenient time, (the litigation process against Microsoft), that a 
competitive product was given little to no promotion or distribution 
through the owners own internet service program America Online which 
successfully seeded consumer households with compact discs of the 
ISP software making them arguably the single largest commercial 
internet provider. I am of the opinion that competitors like AOL, 
Sun, Oracle, etc., were purposely creating allowing perceptions of 
barriers to markets by temporarily holding back on announcing plans 
and delaying or quietly releasing competitive products in order to 
give weight to claims in the antitrust case which they would have 
hoped to concluded much sooner than the time frame that has come to 
pass. At the time, the stock market was riding high and companies 
could afford to use such delay tactics in hopes of Microsoft being 
crippled by an antitrust judgement.
    So I would implore the court to seek out the views and opinions 
of more than just the vocal political and business players in this 
case. The case has been highly political. This opportunity to 
express my views has been the only government solicitation of 
whether I believe to have been harmed by Microsoft`s business 
practices, and I wish to not have the case be the cause of consumer 
harm, which is why I never supported the court ordered breakup of 
the company (which isn`t a bad solution for the company), but 
offered little to no protection of the breakups from the competitors 
who have worked well together to litigate against Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Thomas Earl Fitchette
    tefitche@saturn.vcu.edu
    Richmond, Virginia




MTC-00003590

From: joebuck@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse

[[Page 24320]]

Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20530-001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_Consumer`s Objection to Proposed 
Judgment
    By e-mail dated Nov. 28, 2001, I previously informed you of my 
bases for objecting to the above-referenced `Proposed 
Judgment'. For your reference, I have included below a copy of 
the contents of my prior e-mail.
    I have since reviewed the `Remedial Proposals' filed 
with the District Court on December 7, 2001, by the Plaintiff 
Litigating States. Because the `Proposed Judgment' fails 
to address in any effective manner my concerns expressed in my e-
mail of Nov. 28, and because the `Remedial Proposals' do 
address these concerns, I ask that the `Proposed 
Judgment' be rejected and that the `Remedial 
Proposals' be substituted in its place and I ask that the 
District Court take all steps necessary to make the `Remedial 
Proposals' the final judgment in this proceeding.
    Sincerely,
    G. Joseph Buck
    433 Via Anita
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    `joebuck@worldnet.att.net'
REPETITION BELOW OF PRIOR E-MAIL OF NOVEMBER 28, 2001
    As a consumer, I write to object to the proposed judgment 
because the judgment does not address in a positive manner the most 
important violation by Microsoft of the antitrust law. The proposed 
judgment, instead, expressly condones Microsoft`s continued 
violation of the law.
    The appellate court specifically held that `Microsoft`s... 
commingling of browser and operating system code constitute(s) 
exclusionary conduct, in violation of Section 2.' [U.S. v. 
Microsoft Corp., June 28, 2001, No. 00-5212, p. 40, first 
paragraph of part II.B.2.b.] Contrary to this explicit holding, the 
proposed judgment specifically provides that `(t)he software 
code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.' [Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment, part VI.U]. Thus the proposed judgment 
expressly authorizes Microsoft to continue those acts that the 
appellate court specifically held violated Section 2 of the anti-
trust law.
    Microsoft continues to expand the strength and breadth of it`s 
monopoly over the PC operating system by absorbing into the 
software, which Microsoft calls its ` Windows Operating 
System', functions performed by its competitor`s applications 
and utilities. Because Microsoft sells its `operating 
system' as a single product, each time that Microsoft adds to 
its `operating system' a function that previously was 
performed by the competitor`s product, consumer demand for the 
competitor`s product ceases and the competitor is destroyed. Again 
and again, Microsoft has used this weapon to leverage its monopoly 
power in the Window`s operating system to wipe out it`s competitors 
and its competitor`s software products while, at the same time, 
increasing the strength and breadth of its monopoly. The vehemence 
with which Microsoft objects to any limitation on its use of this 
weapon evidences Microsoft`s recognition of the critical importance 
of this weapon to Microsoft`s continuation and expansion of its 
monopoly.
    Because Microsoft has monopoly power in its `Windows 
Operating System' I, as a consumer, am forced to purchase the 
Windows Operating System in order to operate my computer. Each time 
that Microsoft expands the breadth of its `operating 
system' by absorbing into it functions previously performed by 
other software, I lose the freedom to purchase such functionality 
from other sources, and whether or not I need such additional 
functionality, my computer is burdened by the additional software in 
Microsoft`s `operating system' that performs these 
functions.
    If the judgment does not prevent Microsoft from commingling its 
`Windows operating system' with software that is added 
to absorb functions previously provided by Microsoft`s competitors, 
Microsoft will use this weapon to expand the breadth of its 
monopoly, to destroy its competitors, and to harm the consumers, all 
in the manner explicitly held by the appellate court to violate the 
law. If you do not revise the judgment to forbid Microsoft`s 
absorption into the `Windows Operating System' of 
functions performed by competitors` software, the legal action 
against Microsoft will have failed.
    Microsoft claims that it wants the freedom to 
`innovate', i.e. to introduce something new for the 
first time. Microsoft does not innovate, it instead imitates. 
Microsoft does not create new products and functionality but, 
instead, copies the functionality of its competitor`s products into 
its `Windows Operation System'. Because Microsoft has 
monopoly power, its `imitation' of competitors` products 
harms us all and violates the law. If Microsoft wants the freedom to 
`imitate', let it imitate with software that is separate 
from the `operating system'.
    I can think of no benign explanation as to why the most 
important provision in the proposed judgment was tucked away at the 
very end of a long list of Definitions. The clause that would 
`give away the farm' to Microsoft should, instead, be 
displayed in bold letters at the beginning of the proposed judgment 
under the caption: `GRANT TO MICROSOFT OF LICENSE TO CONTINUE 
TO VIOLATE THE LAW'.
    Sincerely,
    G. Joseph Buck
    433 Via Anita
    Redondo Beach, CA 90277
    `joebuck@worldnet.att.net'




MTC-00003591

From: LynneZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is guilty! That should mean that they receive a 
`real' punishment. My business has been damaged by the 
costs of using bad software.
    Either make it cash plus other severe oversight
    Mail : Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001




MTC-00003592

From: Jonathan Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:14pm
Subject: opinion on settlement
    I doubt this will have an impact, but as a computer 
professional, I think the settlement is a joke.
    Microsoft is obviously anti-competitive, and Windows XP is a 
slap in the government`s face. My MS Passport id is now tied to my 
Win XP user account? Come on. The remedies do nothing to take away 
the benefit of microsoft`s anti-competitive practices. I am forced 
to root for the remaining states and the EU. Windows is not a bad 
product, but Microsoft is a bad company.
    Thanks for your time.
    Jonathan Morgan
    5009 Portsmouth Rd.
    Fairfax, VA 22032




MTC-00003593

From: RBMCLEAN@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Complaint
US Dept. of Justice
Antitrust Div.
Microsoft Settlement Complaint
    Gentlemen:
    As a user of Microsoft Windows 3.1, 95 and 98 SE, I feel that 
the settlement agreed to by the parties does not address many of the 
complaints regarding Microsoft`s business practices for the 
following reasons:
    1. There are still quite a few bugs in Windows 98 SE and I don`t 
think the way to resolve these a to sell a new operating system. 
There seems to be no other way to address them as there is no 
alternative to Microsoft`s software than Linux, which requires 
learning a whole new system.
    2. I believe Microsoft has too much clout in the software 
business and too easily overshadows or obstructs other software 
developers from producing new innovations. An example of this is 
that Kodak`s imaging software`s being more difficult to address in 
Windows XP.
    3. Each new Windows edition obsoletes earlier versions of 
Microsoft software, such as the MSOffice programs, so that if you 
have an earlier version, you cannot process downloads from later 
versions. This forces you to buy the newer versions, just to 
communicate.
    My suggestion is that Windows should become a utility in the 
public domain, with source code available to other developers. 
Microsoft should be the ultimate keeper of the code and be 
compensated for each new edition. Software used in the Windows 
operating system should be a competitive industry, so that other 
developers could produce innovative software and pricing would be 
competitive based on perceived value.

[[Page 24321]]

    Sincerely,
    Bob McLean




MTC-00003594

From: Michael Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:34pm
Subject: Please punish Microsoft
    Please work for the most severe punishment for Microsoft. My 
choices as a consumer have been restricted and I`ve been forced to 
pay for Microsoft products which I`ve neither wanted nor used. Their 
practices have caused severe harm to the software industry, and 
therefor also to consumers, although most consumers are ignorant of 
this. Microsoft uses it`s monopoly position to dominate the industry 
with mediocre technologies. Because of the way Microsoft uses its 
monopoly powers we are denied true choice. We do not have the 
ability to choose the best products or services. It is clear that 
Microsoft does not see itself as causing harm, and will not change 
its practices except to the extent which the government will force 
it. Microsoft will break the agreements it makes with the government 
whenever it thinks it can get away with it, so there must be a high 
level of oversite and strong penalties for breaches of the 
agreement. If you give in too easily now, you will only have to go 
after Microsoft again, a third time. This would not be good for 
anyone other than Microsoft.




MTC-00003595

From: M. Leo Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please permit me to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. One element missing from the proposal is a requirement 
that Microsoft refund to the purchaser of a new computer system the 
cost of the MS operating system if the purchaser refuses to accept 
the OS EULA, uninstalls the OS, and returns all manuals and 
installation media. At present, both the OEM and Microsoft refuse a 
refund under these circumstances, although it is very difficult to 
purchase a computer without the MS Windows OS installed.
    Additionally, Microsoft should be required to disclose the file 
formats for all versions of Microsoft Word, so that third-party 
software can interoperate with it.
    Additionally, Microsoft should be required to disclose all 
details of and alterations to its SMB networking protocol for 
interoperability purposes.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mendel Cooper, author and software developer
    PO Box 237
    St. David, AZ 85630
    (520) 720-9431
    (603) 288-1281 fax
    thegrendel@theriver.com




MTC-00003596

From: Michal Ostrowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed Final 
Judgment in the anti-trust case against Microsoft Corporation. I am 
writing in my capacity as an open-source software developer and 
contributor, having participated in the development of networking 
functionality in the Linux operating system.
    My concerns regarding the proposed Final Judgement are many, 
though I will use this opportunity to express my most fundamental 
concern: the proposed Final Judgement makes no provisions for 
Microsoft to disclose APIs to individuals participating in Open-
Source software development.
    Open-Source software poses the most significant threat to 
Microsoft`s monopoly in personal-computer operating systems. 
Consequently the greatest hope for restoring a competitive balance 
in the operating-systems marketplace is by ensuring that Open-Source 
developers have the ability to produce software compatible with 
Microsoft APIs, networking and authentication protocols.
    The proposed Final Judgement requires Microsoft to disclose 
programming interface information to certain classes of entities 
(commerical entities involved in commercial software and hardware 
development) , none of which include Open-Source software developers 
such as myself. Furthermore, the proposed Final Judgement does not 
specify the terms under which Microsoft is required to provide 
programming information. Consequently Microsoft may provide such 
information to developers under terms that forbid software developed 
with that information to be publicly distributed in source-code 
form.
    Should these concerns not be addressed, Open-Source software 
developers such as myself will be precluded from developing open-
source software compatible with Microsoft software due to the lack 
of availability of information concerning APIs and/or the inability 
to publish Open-Source software utilizing Microsoft APIs due to 
licensing restrictions imposed by Microsoft.
    Michal Ostrowski
    mostrows@speakeasy.net




MTC-00003597

From: Owen Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following is an excerpt from an article by Robert X. 
Cringely. He makes clear what I would have trouble saying:
    The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement specifically 
protect companies in commerce_organizations in business for 
profit. On the surface, that makes sense because Microsoft was found 
guilty of monopolistic activities against `competing' 
commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other commercial 
vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The 
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t 
run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Is the Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. 
They showed through the case little understanding of how the 
software business really functions. But they are also complying with 
the law which, as Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with 
the market realities of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, 
when these laws were first being enforced, the idea that truly free 
products could become a major force in any industry_well, it 
just would have seemed insane. article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html. The biggest threat to microsoft is 
linux. This settlement

[[Page 24322]]

gives microsoft free rein to shut linux out forever.
    Owen Williams




MTC-00003598

From: Martin Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Hello,
    Apparently in the deal that Microsoft have made a three member 
commitee will be formed within Microsoft to make sure the terms of 
the agreement are kept. How are these appointments going to be made?
    Thanks,
    Martin.




MTC-00003599

From: Michele Murteza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:14pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft_schools
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that Microsoft is a monopoly and acted illegally to 
maintain that status, a settlement based on the distribution of more 
Microsoft software seems truly ironic.
    The assumption that Microsoft software in particular benefits 
schools `to prepare students for the business world' is 
not necessarily on target. One goal of technology education at the 
K-12 level aims at teaching software concepts, rather than 
vocationally training students on particular programs. That is, the 
same lessons can be learned from any `office suite' or 
via any `web browser' or on any `operating 
system' to adequately prepare students.
    A true `public benefit' the settlement could provide 
would be to give the choice to schools, not Microsoft. For example, 
Microsoft could provide generic resources (e.g. cash, equipment, 
etc.) that leave the schools free to choose their own software 
technology.
    Any benefit to the schools should be just that_a benefit 
to those students. This settlement should NOT be a thinly veiled 
Microsoft cost saving benefit nor a new market channel!
    Thank you.
    Michele Murteza
    A concerned citizen.
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    415-401-8494




MTC-00003600

From: Scot Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft judgment,
    I Have been in the IT industries for about 6 years, I work for 
Microsoft for 1 of those years and Apple of one of the others. I see 
open source as the next ?competitor? Microsoft will do anything I 
can to deny open source from coming to the front and it looks like 
the DOJ is trying to help it.
    `Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it 
need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies 
that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) `
    This would be my proposed remedy
    1. Microsoft should be forced to document to the public all file 
format standards before the products come to market
    2. all network protocols (defined as any interaction between two 
computers over any networking medium).
    3. all API`s should be documented before they go to market.
    4. not hold open source or non for profit companies liable for 
using the standards they set fourth.
    If you think about it the only reason people buy the new office 
product is for file format inter operability. The same with Server 
and other software.
    Microsoft hasn`t Innovated in a long time. They are now the IBM 
of 1982.
    Scot Ballard
    scot@apple.com
    408-974-0575
    Global Computer Services System Engineer




MTC-00003601

From: Joe Gill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft`s Anti-Trust Case
    Dear USDOJ,
    I am a 22 y/o IT professional currently working for a small 
business as a webmaster for there company and a network 
administrator for them as well. Recently I have switched from 
Microsoft Windows to a more stable system Linux. The reason for my 
switch is due to the lack of enforcement of Microsoft`s Monopoly and 
also due to the fact that linux is much more stable than Windows 
ever will be. I feel that Microsoft should be stopped from 
continuing to release game boxes and updates to there OS until this 
suite gets settled. I also feel that simply donating operating 
systems to schools is a waste of what really needs to be done. 
Donating systems does give our children a chance to learn computers 
but when all of the systems being donated have Windows on them, it 
doesn`t really give our youth a look at what else is out there. As a 
key principle in our lifestyle/nation to have the ability to make an 
educated decision. I feel that if any money should be spent, it 
should be spent on other companies systems not there own. In other 
words, if MS is forced to donate anything it should not be there OS. 
I feel that all of there money spent on donations of there OS should 
go to other OS manufacturers and that those manufactures should then 
donate there software to schools. I also feel that MS should be 
forced to free up the code behind there OS. Having there OS code 
readily available allows IT professionals like me, to be able to go 
in and modify the system to suite our individual needs. Right now as 
there systems stand, the only thing you can really do is add on to 
the system and change minor things. Microsoft`s systems don`t allow 
you to remove any of there proprietary software. Also with MS`s 
latest software release not only continues to have all of there 
proprietary software, but it invades your privacy. Whenever a user 
logs onto the internet it activates MS Messenger which sends data 
back to microsoft about your machine. However, when you connect it 
automatically takes you to msn.com which forces you to register with 
them. By registering with them, they then have all of your personal 
information. (IE Credit card number, name, phone number and 
address.) My last key point is whenever a consumer goes to purchase 
a computer at most any store, they are not given a choice of what 
operating system to purchase. Most 90% of the time users are forced 
to purchase a MS operating system. This needs to change. Retailers 
need to be required to have at least a quarter of the store in other 
operating systems. If this was done users would then be able to make 
educated decisions on what systems to purchase. Thank you for your 
time! I hope you take this seriously in your decision!
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Gill
    5 Quail Wood Court
    Parkton, MD 21120
    410-357-4133




MTC-00003602

From: davisbm@purdue.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Proposed Final Judgement is too weak to have any 
effect on Microsoft`s monopoly. Microsoft`s API`s and file formats 
must be made public, and not just revealed to companies. They must 
be made public because the information must be available to open 
source groups for them to use in their products, as they are the 
only real competitor today. Microsoft will kick and scream, saying 
this will hurt their profits. But that is what will happen when the 
competition gets a fair chance.




MTC-00003603

From: Peter Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writting this to express my hope that you will not agree to 
the currently proposed settlement with Microsoft. In my oppinion, 
there are multiple problems with this outcome. For one, it only 
allows Microsoft to extend its monopoly into schools. As most any IT 
professional will tell you, it is very difficult to retrain/teach 
someone to use a different operating system, and allowing Microsoft 
to get its products into schools only locks students into their 
products. Furthermore, there is very little language in the 
settlement that protects open source/free

[[Page 24323]]

projects such as Apache, Sendmail, SAMBA, and so on. These projects 
are what have allowed the internet to be the open-to-all entitiy 
that it currently is. If these projects were to be replaced by 
propritary software, and even more so if the propritarty software 
was owned by one single company, there would most likly be high 
enough barriers to entry to the internet to prevent worse-off people 
from taking advantage of something that is now such an integral part 
of everyones lives.
    I hope you will reconsider the settlement.
    Pete Snyder




MTC-00003604

From: Ian Bicking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:27pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    I have commented on the settlement prior to its first public 
revision. I would like to append more specific comments to my 
previous comments. The manner in which APIs would be revealed are 
limiting to Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source 
Software (`Free' defined as `without 
restriction' not `free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization. It is essential that the API information be 
made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be 
*absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have 
formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability 
to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected 
by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for 
Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers. It is also 
essential that non-commercial groups of individuals be able to 
access API documentation, and have questions resolved by Microsoft. 
In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on 
any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to further punish 
their most stringent competitors as they have done so many times in 
the past. It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ian Bicking, ianb@colorstudy.com
    Sole Proprietor: Colorstudy Web Design
    http://www.colorstudy.com
    773-275-7241
    4869 N. Talman Ave,
    Chicago, IL 60625




MTC-00003605

From: Adam M Kornick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It may Concern,
    They currently proposed settlement with Microsoft is ludicrous. 
It lets one of the most predatory and illegal mainstream businesses 
of the last 30 years use its settlement to escape real punishment 
while obtaining tax deductible marketing. This settlement will only 
incresae Microsoft`s anti-competitive practices, gain them a 
stronger foothold with our youth, and once and for all destroy any 
software buiness within the US that is not under Microsoft`s thumb. 
If you want to make the software market open:
    1. Force microsoft to stop engineering software with the primary 
goal of incompatibality with competitors.
    2. Take their offer to fund schooling as cold, hard cash, buy 
hardware and let the schools choose wether to buy software or use 
freely available software.
    3. Force microsoft to issue a publicly available reference to 
everyone of their APIS that use no proprietary software.
    Please don`t let microsft continue to destroy the software 
industry.
    Adam
    Adam M Kornick
    Coastal Engineer
    Woods Hole Group




MTC-00003606

From: ash@dragonpaw.org@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am writing in today to express my concerns regarding the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    As clearly made evident in the trial, Microsoft has used, 
illegally, its status to crush many of its competitors. Many of 
those competitors are out of the market forever and many more will 
be unlikely to try and reclaim the territory that they lost to 
Microsoft. Netscape has said they are an information company, not a 
browser company and IE is likely to remain the dominant browser. 
Sure, Mozilla is great, but it is not written to by many sites that 
tend to write IE-compatible-only web sites. What ever happened to 
the open standards of W3C? Microsoft took them and `extended` them 
in ways incompatible with the specification, just as they did with 
Java which ended up costing them their license to the language. (Sun 
Microsystems vs. Microsoft, etc...)
    This is the way in which they operate. `Embrace and 
Extend' is their method of extending their monopoly. Unless 
they are forced to comply with open specifications and unless they 
are forced to make their specifications open, this will never 
change.
    But yet, Linux, the biggest competitor to MS`s monopoly is 
clearly excluded from the settlement. Linux isn`t a company, neither 
is Apache or Samba. Many of these great products have companies 
selling them, but the core development of all of these products is 
handled by non-profits or individuals.
    There is no requirement that the Samba people be told how to 
code to the CIFS layer or how to be able to handle the 
authentication to W2k boxes. There is no requirement that the Apache 
group be told all of the web-related APIs that exist. There is no 
requirement that Microsoft OS`s not destroy the partitions of other 
OS`s on which they share a drive. (As is the case with Win2k 
damaging Linux partitions and boot information in some instances.) 
Linux and the open-source community is as much a part and a victim 
in this issue and they need to be included in any settlement.
    William Arnold
    492 Lomer Way
    Milpitas, CA, 95035
    USA
    William Arnold 
    `The truth will set you free, but first, it will piss you 
off.'




MTC-00003607

From: Rob Yampolsky
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Like many other computer professionals, I am concerned that the 
proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
will do nothing to correct proven past abuses of monopoly power and 
little to prevent future abuses.
    The modifications to the settlement proposed by the nine 
dissenting states, while perhaps farfetched in some instances, 
contain several proposals that will go a long way toward 
guaranteeing a healthy marketplace in what is today not a 
marketplace at all.
    Through Microsoft`s bundling of applications software with their 
operating systems, and through many years of restrictive contracts 
that completely locked competing operating systems out of the IBM-
compatible PC market, we find ourselves in a situation where the 
`popularity' of

[[Page 24324]]

Microsoft`s products is achieved by fiat, and there is no way to 
gauge whether the public wants to buy that software or not.
    I would argue that the main reason people buy Microsoft 
operating systems is the ability to run one or two applications that 
will only run on that platform. Those applications do not include 
web browsers and e-mail readers, which adhere to commonly-accepted 
standards and, not coincidentally, are available for most modern 
operating systems. In fact, in a large number of cases, that one 
vital application is Microsoft Word, which enjoys its own near-
monopoly status due to past Microsoft misbehavior (which was 
similarly not punished and hardly changed by a similarly weak 
Consent Agreement in 1995).
    So the dissenting states` proposal that Microsoft be required to 
offer a version of the Windows operating system with contested 
Internet and multimedia applications removed would go a long way 
toward restoring competition in those arenas.
    Interestingly, the applications that come bundled in the Windows 
XP operating system all have existing equivalents that are available 
at a very low cost or for free. Microsoft contends that its entries 
are free as well, but then how can they account for the fact that 
Windows XP lists for $199 to $299 compared with the roughly $99 
price for the Windows95/98 system that it replaces?
    Microsoft may claim that Windows XP is based on a more stable 
underlying architecture that justifies the added price. Still, with 
every other component of the modern PC becoming better and cheaper 
all the time, why shouldn`t the consumer expect that of the 
operating system as well? The basic function of the operating system 
is the same. Stability? Well, it`s about time.
    They may claim that it is the integration of the Internet and 
multimedia applications with the operating system that justifies the 
added cost. Since the applications cost nothing, then that 
`integration' must come at a cost of about $100. I would 
contend that there are many users that would be willing to do their 
own integration for a savings of $100. I would also contend that 
there are many businesses that would prefer to save $100 per desktop 
while also reducing the incentive for workers to waste time playing 
with all those multimedia toys.
    So, let there be two versions. One for the original $99 price of 
Windows 95 (and with the same feature set), and one for whatever 
Microsoft wants to charge that contains the added features. It would 
be even better in terms of fair competition for the integration of 
the extras to be done by the PC vendors in response to actual market 
demand (to prevent the kind of integration_like that of 
Internet Explorer_that degrades performance of competing 
products by hogging system memory).
    Another constructive contribution of the dissenting states is 
the requirement that the price of Microsoft software be clearly 
listed by PC manufacturers, and that consumers be permitted to opt 
to not buy that software. Microsoft (perhaps in anticipation of this 
requirement) has built effective anti-piracy features into Windows 
XP, so there is no justification for forcing customers to buy 
Windows with every PC sold. How can you expect competition to emerge 
in the PC operating system market if customers are forced to double-
pay in order to get a competing system that, admittedly, does not 
benefit from the availability of applications that only years of 
monopoly status have conferred upon Windows?
    You may argue that there are benefits to the standardization 
that results from Microsoft`s monopoly status. If so, then these 
restrictions will change nothing, and those benefits will continue. 
More likely, a whole new set of benefits will be brought about by 
the widespread adoption of new, open standards that allow multiple 
vendors to compete in providing Word Processors and the like. Only a 
monopolist has something to gain from ignoring (or subverting) open 
standards. The world-wide-web and the global e-mail system offer 
vivid proof that interoperability between different computer systems 
is not only possible, but is enormously beneficial. Either we want a 
free marketplace to exist or we don`t. The law says we do. And the 
DOJ-Microsoft settlement as written will not accomplish it.
    Rob Yampolsky
    rob.yampolsky@encodasystems.com
    (tel) 212-303-4250
    (fax) 212-688-2639




MTC-00003608

From: DSNTelecom@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:32pm
Subject: Our company is concerned...
    Department of Justice,
    I speak for all of us here at DSN Communications when I say that 
we are extremely concerned about the proposed settlement regarding 
the people vs microsoft. It is far too watered down of a settlement 
and doesn`t provide ample punishment for Bill Gates and his abuse of 
our proud capitalistic system.
    One wonders where justice ends and partisanship begins with the 
acceptance of this agreement on the part of the DOJ.
    We here at DSN who have been on the edge of computers since 
1977, have a few suggestions for a settlement that will better 
protect the rights of the people, and put the `trust' 
back into the equation; one that looks away from the questionable 
direction the DOJ has taken with the new presidential 
administration.
    1. Allow Linux, a proven and reliable PC-based Operating System 
to make inroads into education through Red Hat Linux`s equal offer 
vs. the Microsoft`s donation. The creator of Linux, Linus Torvalds, 
wanted a free alternative to the Microsoft madness, and created 
Linux for the people. Microsoft should be forced to make their 
applications available in Linux versions. Apple is also a very big 
friend of education, and has continually proven an ally to 
them_unlike Microsoft who now uses a large donation to 
education (tax break) as a bartering chip vs justice. Whoever 
fulfills the educational need isn`t as important as who 
doesnt_Microsoft. If you allow Microsoft to weasel out of 
punishment with a huge tax break, you will not only have betrayed 
the people of America and our founding principles, but you will 
allow and actually usher-in Microsoft, Inc. to dominate yet another 
area, education, with their unscrupulous and monopolistic practices.
    2. !IMPORTANT! Force microsoft to provide source code for the IE 
web browser. Microsoft`s unwillingness to share source code has 
already driven a new exciting company, Netcape, to be swallowed up 
by AOL/TimeWarner, another huge monopolistic company. Marc 
Andreesen, a young and bright mind, invented HTML and the browser 
with the help of others and started Netscape. Bill Gates not only 
stole his idea, but forced Netscape out of business by the practice 
of withholding source code for Windows. Without this code, 
Netscape`s Navigator web browser could not function properly. 
Netscape slowly lost its market share to Microsoft`s IE Explorer as 
a result. This was after continual requests and pleas from Netscape 
to work with Microsoft. This is simply scandalous and downright 
wrong.
    3. Lastly and controversially, we believe Microsoft should be 
broken into 2 separate companies. One company could handle the IE 
web browser and all program-based applications, while the second 
would focus on the the operating system and making it work with 
everything out there to spur competition, and provide a more 
favorable arena for the kind of competition that our country is 
founded on.
    SO, DSN Communication supports the decision of the 9 states to 
continue on against microsoft despite the obvious 
`influenced' decision of the DOJ as of late (Bush 
administration). We frown on the DOJ`s protection of big corporate 
interests and putting those interests before those of the people. We 
disapprove of how you are handling yourselves regarding the watered-
down and so-called `settlement' proposed by/for 
microsoft. Get some backbone boys, you`ve got a job to do, so go fix 
the problem. Do NOT rally around Mr. `Moneybags' Gates 
like he`s some hero. He`s a criminal, remember? ...something about 
being found guilty, REMEMBER?!?
    Sincerely,
    David S. Nichols
    Owner_DSN Communications




MTC-00003609

From: nathan@ns1.khmere.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings !
    I am 100% against this settlement. It does not properly 
represent the industry nor consumers. Microsoft is guilty and that 
is fact. Microsoft should be broken up and no other settlement will 
suffice. If this case was in the courts 30 years ago Microsoft would 
have been spit up into small pieces by now. However it is apparent 
that today`s Government is not concerned with law but only aids big 
business.
    Nathan Boeger




MTC-00003610

From: Mr.Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24325]]

    To whom it may concern,
    In the most recent column by PBS Technology columnist Robert 
Cringley, it has come to my attention that the anti-trust settlement 
between Microsoft and the US Government it totally skewed to the 
side of Microsoft and commercial computer companies.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Specifically, I am talking about Section III(J)(2), in which 
Microsoft gets to decide which companies constitute a business as to 
wether or not they are required to release connectivity information 
concerning their products. Because of this power, they can 
effectively leave out Open Source Software projects, their biggest 
competitor, because they don`t fit the description of a business.
    This sort of language is not only irresponsible of the part of 
the DOJ, but it in effect lets Microsoft shut out their biggest 
competitor, Open Source Software. The result being that this 
settlement will not only not punish Microsoft, but allow Microsoft 
to shut out yet another competitor, thereby strengthening the 
monopoly that they have already been found guilty of. Please don`t 
let this sort of behavior continue.
    Sincerely,
    Lee McLain




MTC-00003611

From: Bayle Shanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement neither effectively prevents 
Microsoft from continuing monopolistic practices, nor substantially 
punishes them for what th ey have already done. I urge the 
Government to immediately retract this offer. First of all, any 
settlement needs to deal with more than just Microsoft intimi dating 
OEMs into not using competitors. The issue of open APIs, open file 
forma ts, and open services is critical. I find it disturbing that, 
as I have heard, `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, Doc umentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorizat ion 
to companies that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: 
`...(c) me ets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    I believe at a very minimum, any settlement with MS should make 
the interfaces to all these things totally public (NOT just licensed 
to COMMERCIAL entities).
    Second of all, the term is too short. I would press for a ten 
year term at the least.
    Third, the committe designed to oversee MS does not have 
sufficient investigati ve power, and none of its members should be 
appointed by MS.
    Forth, there is nothing to punish MS for its wrongs so far. MS 
has made far too much money off its predatory practices. I urge 
heavy fines against MS. One way to appropriately give these fines 
back to the public would be to give them to the free software 
movement.
    Thank you for your time,
    bayle




MTC-00003612

From: Mark Woehrer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Attorney Hesse,
    I do not like the proposed settlement against Microsoft. I think 
the government should prosecute Microsoft to the fullest extent. In 
the past Microsoft has used every avenue possible to protect its 
known monopoly. Please review the language used in Section III(J)(2) 
and protect the not-for-profits. Without the `Open 
Source' movement we have no choice.
    Kind Regards,
    Mark Woehrer
    Design Engineer
    6100 Vine St. Apt. X-176
    Lincoln, NE 68505




MTC-00003613

From: Shiv Sikand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:48pm
Subject: Comments on proposed settlement
    I am writing because I am very concerned about the fact that 
OpenSource projects, on which my business and many others now rely 
on, are specifically excluded or not-represented in the Settlement, 
specifically in Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D).
    It is very important that these not-for-profit bodies that build 
important and valuable software be left vulnerable to attack by 
Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Shivinder Singh Sikand
    Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.




MTC-00003614

From: Kevin Gabbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will keep this simple.
    I am a computer programmer. I program using languages Microsoft 
has developed, and have a thorough knowledge of Windows and how it 
works. I feel that I am qualified enough to comment on this 
situation:
    _Microsoft has been found Guilty of monopolistic 
practices.
    _it is quite apparent that in the current situation, over 
90% of PC`s are dependent on Microsoft`s Windows software.
    _I feel that the current settlement basically amounts to 
Microsoft taking voluntary actions to curb its on monopolistic 
practices.
    _I feel that the correct remedy should be to nullify the 
situation.
    _Microsoft`s `Crown Jewels' has been the crux 
of this entire problem. The problem lies with Microsoft 
`Integrating' products into their `Crown 
Jewels' in order to circumvent competing products.
    _it is impossible to recall subsequent releases of Windows 
since the `Internet Explorer' problem came to be.
    So..
    Level the playing field. Make the Windows Source Code public.
    Make it so that anyone can do the same thing.
    Respectfully,
    _Kevin R. Gabbert
    http://www.kevingabbert.com




MTC-00003615

From: Andrew Burgess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I disagree with the current settlement as it perpetuates 
Microsoft`s Monopoly. This is not a punishment in any way.
    Examine the option Red Hat Software option and reconsider the 
outcome.




MTC-00003616

From: acmaurer@compuserve.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:52pm
Subject: Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Letting Microsoft get away with $1 billion in software donations 
is no punishment at all. I suppose they get to value it a retail, 
too.
    It does nothing to prevent furure misbehavior_in fact it 
encourages it. I manage a datacenter full of Windows 
systems_but fair is fair. Or not.
    Sincerely,
    Al Maurer




MTC-00003617

From: steve cooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this is a completely backwards way to settle Microsoft`s 
wrongdoings. I think the only way to fairly punish them is to 
monitarily penalize them. Take the dollar value of all the hardware 
and software they proposed to `donate' to schools, and 
multiply it by 1.25 for their arrogance in even trying to fool the 
court into thinking these kinds of tactics would suffice. Certainly 
it costs them money to produce software, but it`s nothing in 
comparison to the damage they`ve done, and ultimately, it does not 
cost them hundreds of dollars per-copy of their operating system. 
Allowing Microsoft to donate software and hardware to needy schools 
is in itself an unfair business practice in context of the charges 
being brought against them. What little market share Apple has 
reasonable access to anymore would be unfairly competed with by an 
offer to free materials by Microsoft.
    I urge you to reject this settlement offer and to focus on what 
will make an obvious impact to the punishing of Microsoft: hard 
cash. Needy schools should be the benefactor of this settlement. 
This much I totally agree with, but at least give the schools the 
opportunity to decide which platform they prefer for themselves.




MTC-00003618

From: Aaron Williams
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24326]]

Date: 12/9/01 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    After looking at the settlement, I think it may make things 
worse than they already are. For example, right now there is a 
popular piece of software called Samba (see http://www.samba.org/). 
Samba allows non-Microsoft operating systems such as Linux, Solaris, 
and many others to interoperate with Windows. Samba is used by many 
corporations and even the US government. Your settlement would 
effectively kill Samba. You see, Samba is not written by a 
corporation, but is a not for profit project. Samba relies on 
Microsoft`s encryption and authentication protocols for 
interoperability. By allowing Microsoft to keep this proprietary 
effectively kills Samba.
    There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to keep security 
protocols undocumented. Security through obscurity has been proven 
time and again to be a failure. DeCSS is a perfect example. The DVD 
industry tried to keep their method of encrypting DVDs a trade 
secret. It was only a matter of time until someone reverse 
engineered it. Not only that, but once it was reverse engineered and 
analyzed it was found to be extremely weak encryption. It was 
supposed to be 40 bits, which while not strong, is time consuming to 
crack. It was found that only 16 bits needed to be found, or 65,536 
combinations. It only takes a modern computer a few milliseconds to 
crack the DVD encryption, even without the keys. Another example is 
Microsoft`s media authentication code for making multimedia files 
that cannot be copied. It has been reverse engineered and well 
documented how to defeat, even though it was proprietary and 
Microsoft tried to make it difficult.
    Microsoft should be forced to fully document every protocol 
(method of exchanging information over a network) and all of their 
file formats. For example, nobody can effectively compete with 
Microsoft Office because the file formats are proprietary and not 
documented. Most of the current support for alternative office 
products (like Star Office) that can read Microsoft documents do so 
by trying to reverse-engineer Microsoft`s files. This is very 
difficult to do and results in less-than-perfect reading of 
Microsoft documents in non-Microsoft products.
    And finally, Microsoft currently has a licensing restriction on 
PC manufacturers such that they cannot install any software that 
modifies the boot process. This requirement prevents manufacturers 
from installing Linux and Windows on the same computer. When Linux, 
or any other operating system, is installed on the same computer as 
Windows, a boot selector must be installed. Microsoft`s restriction 
significantly hampers PC manufacturers who can install either 
Windows or Linux (or any other operating system) but not both.
    I propose the following must be part of the settlement:
    1. Microsoft must fully document all protocols (including 
security related protocols).
    2. Microsoft must fully document the format of any file that is 
used for saving or exchanging information.
    3. Microsoft may not restrict other operating systems being 
installed on computers at the same time as Windows, even if the boot 
operation is modified.
    The documentation must also be available to everyone, not just 
licensed coporations. This will help level the playing field and can 
in fact help grow the economy since there will be more products to 
choose from and new features can be added by 3rd parties that 
otherwise could not.
    Aaron Williams




MTC-00003619

From: Clay Webster
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a gift to Microsoft instead 
of a punishment. I urge you to reconsider. Microsoft should pay 
damaging cash amounts.
    cw
    Clay Webster
    Director, Performance Measurement & Analysis
    tel:1.908.541.3724
    http://www.cnet.com
    CNET, Inc. (Nasdaq:CNET)
    mailto:clay@cnet.com




MTC-00003620

From: Mike Hoggan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don`t have much time to write a lengthy email, but I thought 
it important to express how I feel about the Microsoft Settlement. I 
feel like Microsoft has talked their way out of any significant 
punishment for their monopolistic behavior. If you look at the 
commercial software and OS market there just isn`t any other options 
for consumers than Microsoft. It shouldn`t be that way. Software 
engineers have new ideas, but they don`t even try to start new 
companies based those ideas for fear of Microsoft just including the 
functionality in their OS. The company should have been broken up 
into 2 separate companies along the lines of OS and Applications. 
The proposed settlement only strengthens Microsoft. Did the 
Department of Justice have anything to do with the proposed 
settlement? It sound like Microsoft lawyers wrote it.
    Sincerely, Michael S. Hoggan
    Software/Firmware Engineer.




MTC-00003621

From: stephan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:03pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement (don`t punish the open source movement)
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation.
    This is a very significant movement, and provides great 
potential benefits for American consumers. I think that makes such 
Free and Open Source Software *the* essential beneficiary of the 
ruling against Microsoft. This case was not a question of whether 
businesses were harmed by the monopoly, but rather consumers. It is 
essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped by the 
settlement. Instead they speficially discriminated against by the 
settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security.
    The Free/Open Source communities have created large amounts of 
software that is secure while being open. Microsoft should do the 
same. This process is completely possible, and has been demonstrated 
over and over for as long as computer security has existed.
    Stephan Branczyk
    1087 A Stanford Ave
    Oakland, CA 94608
    U.S.A




MTC-00003622

From: greg gradwohl

[[Page 24327]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
    It seems to me:
    Everyone agrees Microsoft is a monopoly. Microsoft has used this 
position to crush competition. They have no incentive to stop these 
anti-competitive practices.
    Microsoft needs to receive some sort of tangible punishment to 
dissuade them from continuing their current anti-competitive 
practices.
    Greg Gradwohl
    Software Engineer




MTC-00003623

From: gary sirmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:09pm
Subject: microsoft. atr@usdoj.gov
    Hello,
    I just wanted to let you know that I am aghast at the settlement 
that is being proposed for the DOJ and Microsoft. M$ was found 
guilty. They are supposed to be punished not rewarded, which is what 
they will be with the settlement that is being proposed.
    Please, please, please reconsider this judgment. I mean whats 
next putting pedophiles in charge of childrens homes as their 
punishment? This settlement basically says that people convicted of 
breaking the law don`t have to worry about punishment and can just 
keep on doing exactly what they want to.
    Gary Sirmon
    garysirmon@yahoo.com




MTC-00003624

From: wralston29
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be fined an amount equal to the net worth of 
the company. All of their money is tainted because it was illegally 
obtained since the beginning.




MTC-00003625

From: scott worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    As a citizen who values choice and the right of a person to make 
his/her intellectual property freely available, i.e. open-source 
software, I have a few comments on the proposed MS settlement. I 
feel that Microsoft has subtly influenced parts of the settlement to 
eliminate any use of open-source software.
    Specifically, Section III(J)(2) allows Microsoft to define 
criteria which will allow Microsoft to refuse sharing of API, 
communication protocols, documentation, etc. with any organization 
it deems is not a `business`. This provision allows Microsoft 
to continue with their embrace, extend and eliminate any computing 
standards/protocols. As an example, look at how Microsoft behaved 
with MIT`s kerberos authentication system. Microsoft was allowed to 
join the kerberos standards body on the promise they would share any 
extensions to the protocol. What happened? Microsoft extended the 
protocol in proprietary ways in Win2k and refused to release their 
extensions. This meant that computers running kerberos on non-MS 
operating systems could not interact with Microsoft systems. The 
goal, once an organization buys in to Microsoft`s OS they would have 
to replace all non-Microsoft OS`s to maintain functionality. 
Microsoft finally released a specification but under NDA.
    Allowing Microsoft to define the criteria for `valid 
businesses' is the same as allowing defense attorneys to set 
the criteria for allowed evidence! This is what judges are for, to 
provide balance between prosecutor and defense. There is no balance 
with Microsoft allowed to define `valid businesses'. If 
you even allow for an organization which has been defined by MS as 
not `valid' to file a complaint with the 3-member 
oversight tribunal, most organization will either give up or bow to 
MS because of the time required for the oversight committee to 
function.
    Secondly, Section III(D)`s footnotes specifically lock out all 
organization but commercial! This shuts out all non-profits, 
governments, etc. We do not live in a plutocracy. The U.S. Bill of 
Rights exist for individual Americans not corporations. I don`t 
propose being able to demand MS disclose its source code or a 
proprietary technology they truly invented from scratch. The 
internet was founded on open protocols which have allowed it to grow 
and become what it is today. By allowing a monopoly with over 90% of 
the PC operating system market to define who it will share 
information with allows the monopoly to block out all future 
competition. Until there is balance in the operating system 
marketplace, meaning several strong competitors, Microsoft can only 
be trusted to hold on to their monopoly. It`s not about money with 
Microsoft. It is nearly insane hyper-competitiveness. How can a 
person strive to launch a new business in the personal computer 
market when Microsoft wants to control all the protocols and 
information flow? I don`t mind paying taxes to the government for 
infrastructure because if I don`t link something I can always 
participate in the political process and try to do something about 
it. In the case of a business monopoly, we the public, don`t have 
that choice. We can`t vote Bill Gates out. How can people chose one 
technology over another when all that is available is Microsoft 
products? How can I choose to use the open-source ogg-vorbis audio 
protocol when Microsoft is giving away their media player which of 
course uses a proprietary protocol.
    Please! Don`t let Microsoft make us all look like fools by 
allowing them to sneak in anti-competitive language in the 
settlement.
    Scott Worley
    folokai@earthlink.net




MTC-00003626

From: Jeremy Wadsworth
To: `microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m sure you`re probably being deluged by responses so I will 
endevour to keep this as short as possible.
    First I am not an American, make of that what you will.
Short term impact of the settlement
    None to Microsoft, much to US industry in general. To back this 
up lets look at what happened the last time there was a consent 
decree that Microsoft entered into. Did that help or hinder 
competition? Innovation? Or did it just give Microsoft an 
opportunity to damage the market, consumers and the US government 
more? Why did I include the US government, because a) you look as if 
you are corrupt, no better than some bunch of gangsters, whether or 
not this is true, and remember of 6 billion on the planet you number 
less than 300 million souls and b) innovation = better, cheaper, 
faster products and services = more revenue for the corporations and 
for the US Treasury, therefore let Microsoft, or any other 
corporation stiffle it, and there goes lots of Treasury receipts, 
thats what we call in the UK a double whammy.
Long term impact
    5.7 billion people think that you`re dishonest, and no 
proclamations of `I am not a crook' will save you, that 
is very very bad. If the US has learnt anything since Sept 11 it`s 
the phrase `asymmetric warfare', you are inviting people 
to come and knock you down by any means at their disposal by showing 
that you do not conform to the tenants of civilized behaviour, 
fairness and justice. You may be able to stop votes against you at 
the UN or the WTO or WIPO by those that see you being unfair and 
unjust, but you`ll just end up with very angry populations of 
billions across the globe, and in such a population there is likely 
to be more than a few that have the means to do much harm and 
whatever harm they do to you is likely to spill over to the rest of 
us innocent folk in other countries that see the USAs petty politics 
for what it is. Now I know there are some real Right Wing nuts in 
the US, the sort that want some battle of Armeggedon, please don`t 
give them the chance, revise the terms, make Microsoft an example to 
the world that American justice is not about money, or politics, it 
is about what is just, and fair, and right. This you can do,and if 
your political masters refuse to allow you that, resign en masse, 
tell them that if they want to let Microsoft off the hook, then 
they, the politicians will have to sign the papers themselves, 
because we all know the phrase `I was only following 
orders' is no defence, and show the world they are the ones 
who would condone injustice on such an egregious scale.
    In conclusion, The DOJ has in its power to show us all that the 
US is really one of us, one of the Good Guys, revisit the terms of 
the Microsoft Settlement, make them watertight, make them agreeable 
to the industry as a whole, make sure that they stick to the terms, 
have them subject to random checks, and audits, make their dealings 
open and transparent, work with the European Commissioner and other 
national and international authorities to help bring about a 
cohesive and unified stand that means that not Microsoft, nor any 
other corporation can get away with such heinous activity in the 
future, show us all that the pen is truly mightier than the sword, 
do the right thing.

[[Page 24328]]

    Jeremy J. H. Wadsworth




MTC-00003627

From: Alan Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR,Stephen Satchell,Bob Cringely
Date: 12/9/01 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Re: Three-member committee stationed at Microsoft to keep 
Microsoft in compliance ...
    I would like to suggest Stephen Satchell for one of those 
positions.
    I do not personally know the man but as a long-time computer-
user starting with an Apple ][+ and working my way up my G3 
PowerBook, I have noticed his name favorably surfacing quite often 
during those years when we were all trying get our modems and local 
ISPs to work together :)
    And, according to my favorite Computer expert Bob Cringely, 
regarding Steve Satchell`s practical qualifications:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    With a background in computer hardware and software that dates 
back to one of the very first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, 
Steve Satchell knows the technology. He has worked for several big 
computer companies, and even designed and built his own operating 
systems. And from his hundreds of published computer product 
reviews, he knows the commercial side of the industry.
    And, here`s a bit more of Steve`s background he has posted about 
himself:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/
2001Oct/1043.ht ml
    First, let me introduce myself. My name is Stephen Satchell, and 
I`ve been a professional practitioner of Computer Science since 
1971. I have been an observer of several industry standards 
committees, and served for ten years in the Telecommunications 
Industry Association Technical Committee TR-30, a recognized ANSI 
Standards provider, as a regular contributor and for many of those 
years as a voting member. I was the editor for TIA 3800, the modem 
testing procedures standard, for much of its development as well as 
one of the first implementors of the requirements. I have also been 
a member of the SPEC Consortium as an independent tester, on behalf 
of MacUser magazine.
    Much of my work over the past decade has been done on behalf of 
magazines. As a byproduct of that work, I was one of the founding 
members of the Internet Press Guild, an organization formed to 
provide an information resource for reporters and editors who either 
don`t regularly cover the Internet or who are just starting out 
covering the Internet.
    Anyway, thanks for listening.
    Alan & Brenda Mitchell
    Innkeepers
    tel: 541-332-2855
    www.homebythesea.com




MTC-00003628

From: nealr@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_as is it will kill things we use
    Dear sirs,
    I am an executive at a small wireless internet provider that 
operates in Iowa and Nebraska. I have recently read a review of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement by Robert Cringely_here is an 
excerpt from the article:
    _ Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits.
    Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business:
    `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls.
    The settlement gives Microsoft the right to effectively kill 
these products.
    
    Almost all of our `back end' systems are run using 
the FreeBSD operating system. There is a product that runs on 
FreeBSD and other unix operating systems called `Samba'. 
This package allows me to share printers attached to our unix system 
with the Windows laptops our sales force use. FreeBSD is a free 
system developed by volunteers and thusly it does not fit 
`Microsoft`s criteria as a business'.
    The language in the settlement indicates to me that within a few 
months Microsoft will be able to make some miniscule change in their 
authentication protocol and effectively destroy our ability to make 
their products work with the systems we use to run our business. All 
in all I am very disappointed in the proposed remedy_Microsoft 
giving `a billion dollars worth of software' as a fine 
is meaningless_ it costs them $100k to print the material that 
comes in this supposed billion dollar deal and it adds insult to 
injury by directing this `free' software to the public 
school system. This should be modified_let Microsoft give a 
billion in cash for hardware and the OS should be something other 
than their shoddy products.
    Neal Rauhauser
    Neal Rauhauser, CCNP, CCDP
    voice: 402-391-3930
    http://AmericanRelay.com
    fax : 402-951-6390
    mailto:nealr@AmericanRelay.comfcc : k0bsd




MTC-00003629

From: Zach Lutz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The recent Microsoft settlement proposal not only lacks any form 
of punishment but will undeniably make the company stronger by 
giving them a greater foothold into one of the last markets which 
isn`t completely dominated by Microsoft. To go forward with this 
decision is not only highly irresponsible but immensely dangerous. I 
suggest you rethink this situation, the public won`t stand for this 
monopoly to continue as is.




MTC-00003630

From: Michael J. Hauan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my disgust with the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft.
    (1) Microsoft is GUILTY of abusing its monopoly position in the 
operating system market. Yet the settlement allows Microsoft to 
expand and promote that monopoly in schools. The settlement would do 
better to require Microsoft to provide and support Linux or FreeBSD 
in the schools instead so as to create a truly more competitive 
market.
    (2) The settlement does nothing to protect or promote the rights 
of parties that do not meet Microsoft`s criteria for being an 
authenticate or viable business. The settlement denies both the 
government and non-commerical or not-for-profit software development 
organizations any rights to complain, to seek redress, or to bargain 
about access to the information needed to properly interoperate with 
Windows . This should be available to anyone who wants it. Microsoft 
should NOT be able to decide who it will or will not provide this 
information.
    Where in this settlement is the punishment appropriate to the 
crime?
    NOWHERE
    Where in this settlement is the compensation to the victims of 
the crime?
    NOWHERE Where in this settlement are there assurances to protect 
the vulnerable and to deter the culpable? NOWHERE if you are not a 
Microsoft-approved business.
    This settlement is a capitulation to the criminal and an 
abandonment of the people and interests the law should be 
protecting.
    In this case, the government needs some spine.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Hauan 




MTC-00003631

From: Austin King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Your honor and staff,
    I have read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm the 
proposed final judgement and REJECT IT COMPLETELY. If I read this 
document in a vacuum, I would evaluate it as an analysis and 
suggestion list submitted to a boss, whom you want to help, but who 
you do not wish to anger for fear of losing your job. Well you don`t 
work for Microsoft, Redmond Washington, or NYSE, you work for me, 
and all other lone single citizen of these United States. I have no 
vested interest in this case, but a huge one in keep the courts sane 
and just.
    Please use critcal thinking skills when evaluating YOUR 
corporate masters. All you have to evaluate are motives, actions, 
and integrity. Everything else is snake oil.
    The decision is yours, my confidence in knowing that Microsoft 
will recieive any punishement what so ever, is gone. Most likely 
their punishment will be to deliever a billion dollars worth of new 
Windows ME computers to school to raise another generations of dull 
witted consumers. I am too upset to spell check this document.
    Good Day sirs and madams,
    Austin King

[[Page 24329]]




MTC-00003632

From: Anthony Kilna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OK, I`m not going to BS you and tell you that I`ve read the 
entire agreement that`s being finalized for Microsoft. And I know 
I`m probably a part of a deluge of emails you`re getting regarding 
this, especially after the Cringely article covering it.
    I just want to say that I agree with his convern completely. 
Microsoft has proven, time and again, to be willing and able to take 
advantage of any legal loophole available. Don`t let down companies 
like mine, who rely on free software and interoperability with open 
source and microsoft products. Making the language in the settlement 
regarding opening APIs and protocols apply only to commercial 
concerns is a big mistake, because many commercial concerns are 
relying on non-commercial consortiums of developers to achieve a 
common goal.




MTC-00003633

From: Scott Northrop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thanks for all your work on the MS antitrust case. Strong 
antitrust protections are a major component of a functioning 
captialist economy, so you folks are doing the Lord`s work, so to 
speak.
    As the obscurity and malleability of the APIs of Microsoft`s 
products has damaged everyone, please consider amending the proposed 
settlement to require MS to disclose their APIs and source to anyone 
and everyone. Otherwise, it will be a carrot that MS will use to 
keep other software and hardware vendors in line, to extend their 
monopoly to the detriment of all.
    Thanks much,
    Scott Northrop
    Ref: 




MTC-00003634

From: larry johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People:
    I believe the deal made with the DOJ against Microsoft is poor 
and dangerous. It was proved that Microsoft is a monopoly and has 
used this power to destroy competitors as well as using those 
profits to aquire other key pieces of technology. Now the remedy 
lets them off the hook with no more then a finger wagging and gives 
them the green light to continue their ways. Not only is their 
browser technology firmly entwined, now their music player and 
messaging tools are being bundled with the operating system. Lets 
not stop there cause they are after authentication as well with 
passport. All these products tie back to the windows empire. No ones 
deserves to own and control so much of the market as Micrsoft.
    No one can go against it. Not even open source which represents 
the right of the common man/programmer to create programs by his own 
hand and mind. I`m not a lawyer, but in reading some of the articles 
out there it seems clear all concessions made by microsoft only 
involve revealing code and maybe licensing that code to be used by 
another company. But what isn`t given is the right of non commercial 
(open source) companies to use revealed code by Microsoft free of 
all emcumberances to its use and implementation. I think a better 
deal should of removed certain technology from Microsoft domain. 
Should of identified API`s and certain key technologies to sharing 
information and working equally with windows OS products for all to 
use with no restrictions. Microsoft should also have to re-engineer 
their products such that all applications must be independent of the 
OS. For example IE should be completely removable from the OS 
without harming the OS. Also a competitor must be able to completely 
replace IE with its product. Microsoft should not be allowed to 
control any interface that might control and charge customers for 
data. For example Microsoft should not control and own 
authentication services, music services, movie services. At best 
they must provide an interface that others would layer on top of 
that would sell its own data types (music, movies, etc.). This kind 
of stuff only covers for the future. Microsoft has already crushed 
competitors and products as well as aquired new technology by its 
illegal profits. To compensate for that their should be a give back. 
Fines levied against Microsoft that went to companies that lost out 
to Microsoft, companies competing and against microsoft and very 
importantly to Open source projects. Lastly their should be a tax 
levied against Microsoft that is equal to any charges made for usage 
given back to the community (open source and commercial). For 
instance lets say microsoft lets a company use its music player to 
deliver music to its customers for say a dime a song. Well Microsoft 
should be taxed a dime a download to remove all profit from those 
key technologies and that money should go to the other competitors. 
Only when a piece of technology be fairly openned to all can will 
that tax be removed, at which point this area should be a 
competitive area for all technologies. Remember Microsoft plays 
dirty you need a strong hand to keep them inline. I know cause I 
have been in the lan admin and developer field for many years. I 
have made recommendations to my employer in the past that said use 
Microsoft products such as Word not cause it was the best or 
cheapest but because I knew Microsoft didn`t play fair. Since we ran 
on Microsoft Windows I knew our current product Word Perfect would 
be suspeciously broken by the OS. Rather than fight against 
Microsofts evil ways I recommended switching to their side. You can 
right that wrong. At least a little.
    Best wishes
    Larry Johnson
    616-957-0884
    kentwood, MI
    USA




MTC-00003635

From: SteveBravy@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:30pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    A settlement that fails to punish Microsoft for its misdeeds and 
also fails to prevent similar future activities while strengthening 
Microsoft`s position in the schools system is a craven dereliction 
of the gov`ts responsibilities to insure fair competition, avoid the 
formation of monopolies, and foster a marketplace where new ideas 
can flourish. The Justice Dept`s position is a Computer Age Munich 
settlement-peace in our time.
    Congratulations, you have lived down to my worst expectations. 
You are now deserving of the title `Chickens of the 
Bit'.
    CC:SteveBravy@aol.com@inetgw




MTC-00003636

From: celer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I am a software developer for a major computer security 
company. I hope that the US Department of Justice is willing to put 
in place rules and regulations that are more strict then those 
proposed in the current settlement. If Microsoft is not regulated 
sufficiently then I as a consumer, a working American and 
technologist stand to lose. As a consumer I stand to loose, because 
I will have less choice in applications and features. Microsoft is 
starting to compete in the computer security market, with the 
bundling of personal firewalls and email encryption, I as a working 
American stand to lose. Finally as a technologist I fear that many 
innovative ideas are squashed in the wake of their monopoly, and 
that creative diversity will eventually suffer.
    I have heard that the DOJ is going lite on Microsoft because 
they believe that constraining any business in these times is not 
good. What about all those who have to compete against Microsoft?
    David Spencer Tyree




MTC-00003637

From: Col.Kurtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:32pm
Subject: Steve Satchell
    Do the right thing. Oh wait, you`re lawyers won`t let you. Good 
thing this email did`nt come from an open source 
`product'...




MTC-00003638

From: Jonathan Ploudre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is vital for Microsoft to be held accountable for 
it`s actions. The currently proposed settlement seems to let them 
off easy. If Microsoft is going to donate to schools, the schools 
should get to decide what they want to do with the money. Microsoft 
should donate cash_notsoftware which has no physical value.
    It seems odd to me that Microsoft gets to expand its realm by 
donating when we are trying to prosecute them for monopolistic 
behavior.
    Jonathan Ploudre
    Fourth Year Medical Student @ ETSU

[[Page 24330]]




MTC-00003639

From: Dan Carrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment from Ohio
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse:
    I wish to raise my objection to the proposed anti-trust 
settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice.
    The remedy only benefits a limited group, K-12 and after five 
years will futher enhance Microsoft monolpyistic position. I agree 
Mr Steven Jobs suggestion, give the schools the money, suggest $10 
billion instead of $1 billion in cash and let the schools decide 
what they want.
    I wish to nominate Mr Steve Satchell for the three-member 
committee wish will enforce the anti-trust remedy.
    Regards,
    Dan
    Dan Carrigan
    Reference Librarian
    Antioch College
    Olive Kettering Library
    937 767-1240
    795 Livermore Street
    Yellow Springs, OH 45387-1695
    dcarrigan@antioch-college.edu




MTC-00003640

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is not satisfactory.
    In particular, all organizations and people are entitled to full 
use of the documentation of Microsoft Protocols and APIs (Aplication 
Programming Interfaces. In particular, makes and programmers of Free 
Software and Open Source Software MUST be permitted this access.
    The Free Software and Open Source software movements are 
Microsoft`s most significant competitors in servral fields. I 
microsoft is allowed to exclude them from the use of their 
protocols, as allowed in Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D), it 
leavle them an open filed with no competition. Seciton III(J)(2) is 
particularly offensive, as it allows Microsoft to choose who it will 
sare information with. This is WRONG. Microsoft should have no say 
in the matter at all. They have comitted multiple felonies.
    The details of Microsoft protocols and APIs should be publicly 
available, free of all charges and free of all limitations on use.
    Bob Niederman
    680 S. Federal St., APT 705
    Chicago, Il 60605




MTC-00003641

From: Scott M. Hoffman
To: Microsoft Anti-Trust
Date: 12/9/01 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to add my voice to those that are concerned that 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is quite 
inadequate.
    The main problem lies in that the remedy barely proposes 
sanctions on Microsoft. It does not in any way address divesting 
it`s monopoly.
    If Microsoft is allowed to retain all rights to it`s IP, then we 
might as well start calling ourselves the United States of 
Microsoft. The only hope for the future of computing to not be bound 
by what Microsoft wishes, lies with alternative operating systems. 
The catch-22 is that because they are the monoply, other software 
companies only want to produce products for their platform.
    A separate body must be made to encourage the growth of 
alternative Operating systems, and to encourage software vendor 
support of them.
    Thanks for your time,
    Scott Hoffman
    6700 Idaho Ave N
    Brooklyn Park, MN 55428




MTC-00003642

From: Thomas J. Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:47pm
    I am very happy that the government finally chose to settle the 
law suit against Microsoft as I feel it was politically motivated 
and in no way reflected the appreciation that we the users of 
Microsoft products feel about the contentions of the Justice 
Department.
    I in no way was pressured to use the bundled services that were 
included in my computer when it was purchased and as a matter of 
fact, I do NOT use the other Microsoft features, but I`m glad they 
are there as they fit in so well with the day to day software that I 
do use.
    Thomas J. Bass




MTC-00003643

From: Dietrich Ayala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If there is one single most broken part of this so called 
`remedy', it that non-profit software organizations and 
projects are not protected at all from the monopolistic and 
predatory practices of Microsoft. The language of the settlement 
leaves Microsoft free to treat them (including the DOJ I might add) 
as though there was no anti-trust case in the first place. For more 
details, please read this article: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    A shame, and a horrible injustice.
    Thanks,
    Dietrich Ayala




MTC-00003644

From: Doran L. Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern over the currently proposed 
terms of the settlement between Microsoft and US DOJ and various 
state attorney generals.
    I feel the current settlement terms are letting Microsoft off 
too easily and giving Microsoft future capabilities to further 
empower their monopoly by taking on legal battles with open source 
projects.
    Microsoft is guilty as charged and should not be given a remedy 
which would in any way allow them to grow their empire. Please 
review the settlement terms and consider revising them 
appropriately.
    Doran L. Barton




MTC-00003645

From: bruins@montagesystems.com.au@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I believe it is my duty to protest the ineffective responce to 
Microsoft`s illegal activities. I realise I am no a citizen of USA, 
but Australian IT law is strongly influenced by USA law and 
judgements, so I must make my point at the source. I believe the 
judgements have failed to understand the full nature of Microsoft`s 
crimes. The Micorsoft crimes are not only against commercial 
companies, but more importantly against the free-software community. 
Microsoft crimes strike at the people who write software to help 
their fellow man/woman, rather than the all mighty dollar.
    Please, I beg you, reconsider. Microsoft has only one real 
compeditor, and that is free software like Linux. Micorsoft knows 
this, and you are helping it kill free software. Stop the Microsoft 
monopoly, give linux a chance to form an effective compeditor to 
Microsoft, and we will all benifit. Realistic software prices, 
better and more stable products. Please, we need your help including 
protection for non-commercial software. Stop the Microsoft crimes. 
End the Microsoft monopoly.
    I thank you for your time.
    Mike Bruins
    Mike Bruins, BSc (Infomation Systems)
    Information Analyst/Senior Trainer
    Montage Systems Pty. Ltd.
    South Australia.
    ph (08) 8331-3022
    fax (08) 8331-3044
    ABN 68 088 677 721




MTC-00003646

From: Terry Houle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MS Settlement
    In regard to the proposed settlement between the US vs. 
Microsoft I feel the proposed settlement is far too lenient and will 
not stop Microsoft from going about their monopolistic ways to the 
detriment of the public. For years I have been forced into the 
Windows Operating System when choosing a new personal computer. This 
has caused me adverse financial impact by not allowing me other 
options. This was caused due to the monopoly that Microsoft created. 
I believe the court should direct Microsoft to refund all owners of 
Windows Operating Systems a dollar figure to be determined by the 
court. This shall be for each system they may have purchased such as 
Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, etc.
    The Technical Committee (TC) that is proposed by this proposed 
settlement is inadequate to oversee this corporate giant. Also the 
Microsoft Compliance officer`s role needs to be strengthened. It 
should be a stipulation that the job shall be the only task

[[Page 24331]]

they perform for Microsoft Corporation and not let it get diluted 
with tasks they may be responsible for. The court should have 
overseer authority and have to approve the change or termination of 
said officer. The court needs to insure Microsoft does not bully 
them into their ways and they do not have to fear termination, or 
retribution by Microsoft.
    It also does not appear that the court has addressed the 
`Passport' service that is proposed by Microsoft and the 
potential negative impacts of that.
    As a consumer I feel I have been forced into using and having to 
pay a premium price for the Windows Operating System when purchasing 
several computers. Microsoft should be forced to refund me, as well 
as all other consumers, a portion of that price since they forced 
the situation where there was not competition and hence I had to pay 
a premium.
    This settlement is not in the best interest of the consumer who 
has been harmed financially.
    Terry Houle
    Bloomington, Minnesota
    houle@citilink.com
    http://www.citilink.com/houle




MTC-00003647

From: Colin Murchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to state my wholehearted disgust for the 
proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement, which is such a cynical and 
arrogant gesture on the part of the Microsoft corporation that it 
leaves me nearly speechless.
    Of particular note are;
_Microsoft`s proposed `donation' of software which 
it is allowed to value at market prices, despite being able to 
provide it at much less actual expense.
_The fact that this donation is targeted at the educational 
market, a craven ploy for Microsoft to make a forced entry into one 
of the last reamining markets in which it is not already dominant, 
and
_The fact that none of the settlement terms are targeted to 
Microsoft`s nonprofit competitors (including the massively-used 
programs Apache, Sendmail and Perl,) which represent its most 
salient competitors.
    I cannot believe that the DOJ is seriously considering such an 
insanely biased proposal. This `remedy' amounts to a 
massive compettive subsidy to Microsoft Corporation.
    Regards,
    Colin Murchie




MTC-00003648

From: Christopher Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A simple remedy would be to relicense Microsoft software such 
that OEMs are not allowed to install Microsoft operating systems on 
new PCs. Microsoft is guilty of preventing OEMs from installing 
competing operating systems in the past, which makes this remedy fit 
the bill perfectly. It will also force OEMs to install competing 
operating systems like Linux.
    APIs such as DirectX need to be ported to competing operating 
systems. DirectX was designed to lock game manufacturers onto a 
single platform (at the time is was designed to kill DOS, but it 
effectively kills all competing operating systems as well).
    Document formats need to be opened up. There is no reason why 
Microsoft word documents must be stored in a proprietary closed 
format. This is a blatent abuse of Microsoft`s monopoly power. 
Document formats should be in an open, and easy to understand format 
such as XML.




MTC-00003649

From: Jeff Ober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I have been reading a lot about some of the proposed ideas 
for the MS settlement. I am a student and use several different 
operating systems on several different computers. I am not a 
Microsoft supporter, but I do not think that mandating that they 
develop their office applications for other OSs, such as Linux and 
Unix variants. This would be a punishment rather than a regulation 
that would help competition.
    They would be spending a lot of money on development for this, 
but no one would ever buy the product.
    Linux users are extremely against purchasing products, 
especially from closed source projects, but very especially from 
Microsoft. I would think a better solution would be to require them 
to open source their document formats, such as the MS Word .doc 
format, so that other office programs that are already ported/made 
for linux/unix variants could become more compatible with MS Office. 
Because of MS Office`s dominance in the business world, their closed 
source document formats make using OSs other than Windows 
impractical in any situation other than an entirely non-windows 
environment. If the .doc format (and other Office formats) were open 
to projects like www.openoffice.org, these office suites would 
become more viable for companies and users, even in a primarily 
Windows-based environment.
    Because of this, I think that this would be the most pro-
competitive solution to this problem.
    Jeff Ober
    jso@notsohotmail.com




MTC-00003650

From: Gabe Burt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ma`am or Sir,
    I am concerned about what I have heard about proposed 
settlements in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. From what I understand 
Microsoft it trying to get wording included in the settlement that 
will allow them to exclude and take advantage of Open Source 
projects. They are trying to include language that would allow them 
to allow commercial organizations access to more of their code and 
therefore be able to develop and compete, but this excludes the 
majority of software development in the Open Source (GNU/Linux and 
many more) communities.
    Also, I read about a proposal from Microsoft that would allow 
them to spend $1.1 billion on hardware and software for the poorest 
school districts. Not only do I find this ludicrous because this 
does nothing to diminish their status as a monopoly, but they want 
to spend the vast majority of that money on their own software. I am 
disgusted that nine states have agreed to this settlement. It is a 
grossly unfair settlement. It has Microsoft pay only a very small 
amount of money for actual hardware ($200 million, I believe), and 
puts Microsoft software on those computers, thereby advancing 
Microsoft`s stance in the education market. If any variation of the 
proposal was to be accepted, I feel nothing less than having 
Microsoft pay entirely for hardware and equipping the computers with 
Red Hat Linux software is fair.
    Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Calling these settlements a 
punishment is laughable. Please don`t let these ridiculously unfair 
settlements go through. They will do nothing but add to the choke 
hold Microsoft has on the software development world, and lead to a 
further lack of choice for consumers.
    Gabe Burt
    University of Illinois Student
    Legal Resident of Kansas




MTC-00003651

From: Joshua Redstone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the US and a resident of WA, under the Tunney 
Act I wish to make the following statement:
    I do not believe that Microsoft should be allowed to get off so 
easy. I think they are a danger to innovation and competition in the 
software industry, if not by their very size, then by their overly-
aggressive and anti-competitive acts in the past. I hope that the 
organs of government that decide the fate of Microsoft have enough 
dedication to the US and the American people to not succumb to 
influence of Microsoft.
    Joshua Redstone
    Dept. of Computer Science (PhD candidate)
    University of Washington




MTC-00003652

From: Michael Kemp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir_
    Looking through the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case, I 
see that there is plenty of provision for for-profit entities, such 
as Netscape. However, the real threats to Microsoft`s dominance as a 
monopoly comes from what are called `open source' and 
`freeware' products.
    For example, the Apache web server system (www.apache.org) is 
used as a webserver by 56% of all webservers on the internet(1). 
However, the foundation that maintains the webserver system`s 
software is a non-profit organization. They would have

[[Page 24332]]

no rights at all, or even be considered to exist in the current 
proposal.
    Another example is SAMBA. This is a software suite that allows 
client machines to access files from a server. The server, when 
running the SAMBA software, can masquerade as any type of server, 
such as an NT file server. From my own experience, I can attest that 
the SAMBA system is popular. However, I cannot give any specific 
statistics. I would also like to point out that, as it stands, the 
only real threat to Microsoft are groups of independent software 
engineers who do not charge any money for their product and work for 
free, essentially acting as volunteers.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Kemp
    PO Box 3028
    Socorro, NM 87801-3028
    1-http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
    2-http://tr.samba.org/samba/samba.html, http://www.samba.org/




MTC-00003653

From: B. Y.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    I don`t think Microsoft did anything wrong. Microsoft is 
successful and became a monopoly because it didn`t make any major 
mistakes like many of its former and current competitors did.
    I think the current proposed settlement is:
    *impractical,
    *lacks common sense,
    *against the principles of market and free enterprise,
    *does not benefit consumers
    *only benefit Microsoft`s competitors indirectly because it 
drags Microsoft down
    I believe the law suit against Microsoft is here because some 
companies, like Sun Microsystems, could not compete successfully 
against Microsoft in the market place, so they lobbied government 
bureaucrats (who are ignorant about the computer industry) to act on 
their behave against Microsoft. Quite innovative competitive 
strategy!
    Regards,
    Bo Yang




MTC-00003654

From: Alexander Palmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with Robert X. Cringely`s views in this article:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    The proposed settlement seems to have a number of holes.
    Thanks,
    _Alex Palmo




MTC-00003655

From: Rick Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:12pm
Subject: pending antitrust action
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 concerned that Microsoft still has most of the cards to 
play in the non-holdout settlement. I am not confident that any form 
of monitoring will catch this company doing anti-competative 
actions, especially under the apparent negotiated settlement. 
Remember that this company has drastically misrepresented its 
behaviors already, making ludicrous arguments in the face of what 
the consumer and programming public knows to be otherwise. You need 
only look to the special connections that Office products have to 
the OS to observe that Microsoft cheats, bigtime.
    What could possibly motivate your group to trust them in any 
way?
    _Rick Moore
    Richard Moore
    Research Director
    Division of Breast Imaging
    Department of Radiology
    ACC219, 15 Parkman Street
    Mass General Hospital
    Boston, MA 02114
    USA
    Work: 617-726-8751, 617-726-3093
    Fax: 617-726-1074
    Lab: 617-727-3694 Donna
    Secy: 617-726-3093 Cathie
    Pager: 781-230-5888
    email: rhmoore@partners.org
    email@home: rmoore@evolvingedge.net




MTC-00003656

From: joe shoop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am deeply concerned with the proposed Microsoft Settlement 
`remedy'. I think it should not only be modified to 
clarify and close loopholes that exist, but it should also address 
the issue of protection of non-profit software concerns, such as 
Apache, Linux, and to some extent, Java. Microsoft has never been an 
innovator and has used, and will continue to use, its monopoly power 
to stiffle innovation.
    Regards,
    Joseph Shoop




MTC-00003657

From: Anze Slosar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir,
    I am writing to you regarding the Microsoft Antitrust 
Settlement. The settlement in the present form is unsatisfactory and 
Microsoft can emerge from it stronger than ever. Microsoft`s 
stronger monopoly is at the OS (operating system)`s side: through 
the clever marketing policies it has forced dealers to include only 
Microsoft OS with new computers_this has forced at least two 
(Beos and OS/2) commerical OSes out of mainstream use.
    However, at the present, the most viable alternatives to 
Microsoft`s OSes come from not-for-profit organisations: these 
include BSD Unix and Linux OSes, together with services that allow 
them to be used as Web servers (mostly apache, Apache 
Foundation_another not for profit organisation). Such non-
commerical enterprises are completelly unprotected under the current 
settlement and migh be easily killed off by Microsoft. Quoting 
Robert X. Cringely:
    `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, 
...'�1A'
    Secondly: Microsoft proposed to settle the agreement by 
providing schools with computer (hardware and software) equipment, 
making his position stronger than ever. However, a major open source 
company_Red Hat Inc._ proposed to enhance this this 
offer by letting the Microsoft provide the hardware, while they will 
provide an alternative OS solution. I personally think that this is 
by far the best solution: not only will the socially deprived areas 
get to use the computers, it will indeed make a big paradigm shift 
for those areas away from Microsoft into using alterantive computing 
solutions. As people responsible for punishing Microsoft you must 
imagine a world in which not every one uses Microsoft Windows and 
Microsoft Word (I am afraid that judges willy-nilly take them as a 
defacto standard).
    Thirdly: Steve Satchell has applied for a position in a three-
person cometee stationed at Microsoft and enforcing the settlement. 
Steve is a very experienced and educated person, who has been in the 
computer bussiness for a long time and understand the sprockets and 
wheels of it extremelly well. Morever and more importantly, he is a 
deeply ethical and fair person and he is an ideal choice for that 
position. Therefore I recommend him most warmly.
    Yours sincerely,
    Anze Slosar
    St John`s College
    Cambridge CB2 1TP UK




MTC-00003658

From: jbange
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an end user of Microsoft products, and as an engineer who 
deals with both Microsoft and non-Microsoft software on a regular 
basis, I would like to lodge my complaints against the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Clearly no-one has learned from any of the 
evidence that was presented in this trial. The proposed settlement 
enables Microsoft to further it`s clear and unfair dominance in the 
software and operating system market by inserting itself into 
schools while also locking not for profit companies and the 
government out of any potential for remedy. I for one want my 
children to learn that there

[[Page 24333]]

is more than one choice when it comes to software, and this is not 
the way to do it. For that matter, children will be conditioned to 
use Microsoft software and eventually increase the already too 
strong user base that Microsoft commands. Do we punish a monopoly by 
strengthening it? No we should not.
    Please reconsider this settlement and impose a breakup of 
Microsoft or other measures to stop this monopoly before more small 
software companies fail. Do not let Microsoft stifle the growth of 
our technology markets any more.
    Thank you!
    Joe Bange
    Atlanta, GA




MTC-00003659

From: Mike Scalora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:22pm
Subject: What are you thinking?
    How does helping making Microsoft a monopoly in schools do 
anything for all the money they have ripped off from consumers? How 
about all the companies that they have run out of business?
    Mike Scalora, Orem, Utah




MTC-00003660

From: Michael Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft give the schools 1 billion dollars to spend as 
they see fit. The organization responsible for doling out the money 
should not be associated with Microsoft. If the schools choose to 
spend the money on Microsoft software, fine. But they would be free 
to choose Linux and Apple as well. Also, schools don`t need 
someone`s hand me down refurbished computer.
    Also, the fine print of who can see Microsoft`s APIs should not 
be limited to companies that Microsoft deems as a viable business. 
How would they know a viable business. They have historically 
purchased all of their technology from others who saw the need. Make 
Microsoft share all of their apis with ANYONE, including the U.S. 
government and open source.
    Thank you.
    Michael Simpson
    Senior Software Engineer
    msimpson@ameranth.com
    (858) 794-8282 x138




MTC-00003661

From: Harvey McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    What I have read in the press regarding the `settlement 
details' of the proposed agreement has made me most angry.
    Allowing more MS `stuff' into the classroom is 
reinforcing MS`s monopoly for years down the road.
    And speaking of that road, it is littered with the stripped 
carcasses of other companies that developed a product only to have 
it bundled into Windows, at times with all the code intact (Stacker, 
for instance).
    The only way this is going to work is to separate MS into 
two_one for the OS and the other for other software products. 
You know it and I know it and the industry knows it. Extract digit 
and do it.
    Yours most sincerely,
    H. W. McDaniel
    31888 Fayetteville Drive
    Shedd, Oregon
    shmcd@quik.com




MTC-00003662

From: Ryan Vanderzanden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I, as an end user of computers and computer software, feel that 
the proposed settlement is utterly appalling. This is far worse than 
a simple slap on the wrist to a company that knows darned well that 
they abused their monopoly powers, but it helps them to further 
extend their power.
    As an end user of various types of computers and computer 
software, I rely on multiple platforms talking to each other. One 
large hole in the wording of the settlement is that it would allow 
Microsoft to effectively stop such interactivities. That is truly 
terrible, because it puts Microsoft in a heightened state of 
control.
    It seems to me, as a consumer, that this 
`punishment' is actually nothing of the sort, and most 
of the settlement is designed to work out in Microsoft`s favor. 
Worse yet, is that during the entirety of the court proceedings, 
Microsoft continued to do the very thing they were at court for, 
abusing monopoly power by bundling Windows Media Player and Windows 
Messenger into Windows XP, and tightening the grip on what hardware 
vendors could and couldn`t do with the desktop. A settlement such as 
this only enforces the behaviors that Microsoft has grown so 
accustomed to.
    Please, lay down a stricter punishment, something that actually 
hurts them, not helps them. They were found guilty, they have done 
nothing whatsoever to show any remorse (and in fact have done more 
things that prove that they don`t care what anybody says, and that 
they have the power). They are not untouchable as long as we do 
something about it now. No software company in the world has a 
chance to beat them on anything they do, and they will continue to 
grow and abuse their powers unless they see that there are 
repercussions to monopolistic abuses. Force them to open their 
source code, force them to stop bundling software such as Internet 
Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger with Windows, 
and whatever happens, keep them from running the world with their 
.net and passport strategy where the internet will be relegated to 
an `in' club (those who play by Microsoft`s rules) and 
an `out' club (those who refuse to follow suit, and end 
up not being able to shop online at amazon.com, or whatever sites 
have exclusive agreements with Microsoft).
    Personally, I feel that they should be split up, but I see that 
will never happen. However, demanding they give a couple billion 
dollars to AOL/Netscape, as well as Apple, Real Networks, etc, will 
make the point that if they continue to abuse power, they will have 
to pay.
    Thank you for your time.
    Ryan Vanderzanden




MTC-00003663

From: Sarah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly against Microsoft`s proposed settlement to the 
Anti-Trust trial. They are a monopoly, that is a fact and it is not 
in dispute. However, whilst Microsoft as a company, does do `a 
lot of good' as an mostly ethical originisation, the very fact 
that they leveraged their monoploy position demands action. During 
the original Ant-Trust trial, they were found to be falisifying 
evidence, another action that has gone unpunished.
    I demand sufficient action be bought against this company. 
regards
    Richard Roberts




MTC-00003664

From: Justin Michael Palk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to you in regards to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. As a computer professional, I am gravely 
concerned about the apparent leniency of the settlement currently 
under consideration. While I in theory support the idea of a speedy 
remedy, I do not believe that in any instance a speedy remedy should 
take the place of an effective and reasonable remedy, the current 
settlement appears to assign primacy to the former at the expense of 
the latter.
    The overall structure of the settlement leaves something to be 
desired, as it leaves Microsoft`s fundamental course of operation 
untouched, and generally seems to have no concrete method of 
enforcement, as the Technical Council (TC) only has the power to 
suggest remedies in the event of a breach of the settlement (IV D 4 
c). Similarly, the restriction against members of the TC and their 
findings, recommendations and other products being admitted in court 
in any matter regarding the settlement is another curious limitation 
on the strength of the proposed remedy. Microsoft has demonstrated 
its willingness to violate agreements with the government in the 
past (indeed, just such a violation led to the prosecution of this 
case), and there has been no indication that it has changed its 
underlying opinion to such agreements. Without a stronger set of 
enforcement provisions, I fear that Microsoft will regard this 
settlement with the same disdain it has had for similar agreements 
in the past.
    Another flaw in the settlement is the lack of consideration 
given to open source, and `free` software. There are sections which 
require Microsoft to provide information to commercial competitors, 
but non-commercial ventures are specifically exempted from these 
requirements. (III J 2 c) gives Microsoft the ability to define the 
`reasonable, objective standards... for certifying the authenticity

[[Page 24334]]

and viability of its business`, when deciding who is allowed to 
request information regarding APIs, communications protocols and 
documentation. Open source software, such as the Apache web server, 
and Sendmail (the most widely used web server and mail transport 
software on the internet, respectively), clearly compete with 
Microsoft products, but, as they are not commercial products, their 
authors have no right to request information from Microsoft. 
Similarly, SAMBA, a widely used software package for allowing 
Windows-based file servers and printers to work with UNIX and other 
systems, and requires information on Microsoft communications 
protocols, will effectively have its death warrant signed should 
this settlement come into effect.
    Microsoft itself has recognized that various open source 
projects are the greatest threat to its continuing dominance of the 
software market (as shown by the `Halloween Documents` http://
www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html). They have also 
demonstrated their contempt for government attempts to break their 
stranglehold on the market. It is my opinion that this proposed 
settlement will do little to curb Microsoft`s predatory and illegal 
behavior in the commercial sector, while simultaneously 
strengthening their hand against what is currently the greatest 
threat to their monopoly. I urge you to reconsider and rework this 
settlement into an effective remedy that will free the market and 
provide a tangible benefit to consumers.
    Justin Palk
    jpalk@engin.umich.edu
    734-622-9865




MTC-00003665

From: Mark Crandell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regard to what I have heard about the proposed settlement 
regarding the Microsoft case. For one I am disappointed with the 
current idea regarding donation Microsoft products to school 
systems. The current deal from what I have heard allows Microsoft to 
distribute to schools the software that it chooses. I for one do not 
feel this helps school, and also I believe it would help Microsoft 
extend its reach into the education market. I would be happy to see 
anything Microsoft might pay me to instead go to a school; however, 
it needs to be up to the schooling systems how the money would be 
spent. I am in favor in Microsoft buying the hardware and having Red 
Hat Linux supply the software.
    I believe the Linux operating system would be a great tool for 
schooling systems to have partly because of the great opportunity 
for learning computers, and computer software at a low cost (free!). 
For me, learning how to use Linux has defiantly become a valuable 
tool for becoming a computer engineer.
    Thank you
    Mark Crandell



MTC-00003666

From: John C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have a number of concerns about the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft setllemant. One of the first of these is the following:
    Section III(J)(2) My understanding of thia is that it 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, ...
    According to this it allows Microsoft to define what a business 
is. For example it may set citeria that a business has to make $100 
million a year to meet the criteria. A small medical and research 
clinic which is not-for-profit may not meet their 
`criteria'. The apache web server is a not-profit and it 
will be locked out. As will samba for sharing information across a 
network which has multiple types of machines run on the same 
network.
    My next concern is Microsofts `giving' X number of 
dollars to schools, etc. in hardware and software. Thatis easily 
inflated by the `retail' prices of the software they are 
giving away, all Microsoft, no doubt. If this is to happen the 
dollar figure should be based on Mirsofts cost to reproduce the 
software that is all ready developed. i.e less than a one dollar to 
press the disks.
    This is actually just one more method to maintain there monoply 
under the guise of good will. I think that the donation needs to 
include an equal number of SGI machines, Sun machines, Apples, 
HPunix and Linux boxes to give the education systems all the tools 
that students may need in there lives.
    Having microsoft use their skills to make the top 50 selling of 
their products run on the all the above mentioned machines and 
operating systems. This would break the monoply of the operting 
system.
    They are a monopoly and they consistently have locked out or 
seen good product and then jump on it in a manner that has destroyed 
other business of which Netscape was one. My fear is they will 
continue to lock out others and maintain there monopoly.
    A final point no longer allow them to use end user license 
agreements. Declare there products commodities just as a apple or 
pear is.
    Sincerely,
    John A. Constantine, PhD.



MTC-00003667

From: Shafer Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to comment on the proposed settlement. I`m opposed to 
this settlement for the following reasons:
    1. The settlement does nothing to redress the wrongs done to the 
parties actually harmed by Microsoft`s actions, such as Netscape. 
The workers who have been laid off at these companies are receiving 
nothing through this settlement though they`ve had their livlihoods 
effected by Microsoft`s illegal actions.
    2. Section III (J)(2) of the proposed settlement outlines 
companies as being an organization that exists for profit, yet 
Microsoft`s internal documents leaked to the public recently state 
that Microsoft considers it`s biggest threat to be from non-profit 
organizations such as Linux. In the proposed Settlement Microsoft 
will be not only able to continue unfair and illegal activities 
against such non-profit organizations but it will be justified in 
doing so because of the language of this proposed Settlement.
    3. Section III (D) continues the language of (J)(2) further to 
enable Microsoft to shut out competition from non-profit middleware 
companies such as ISV, IHV, and OEMs.
    4. Lastly, the American government itself will be shut out by 
the language of this proposed Settlement. The Department of Justice, 
National Standards and Technology, etc. will be classified as non-
profit organizations by the language of this Settlement and 
Microsoft will be open to exploit that new relationship as it sees 
fit.
    In conclusion, this Settlement will not repair the damage done 
by Microsoft to the people harmed by their earlier illegal actions, 
and it will allow Microsoft to continue such illegal actions against 
entirely new organizations in the future. The language of this 
Settlement is such that it leaves wide avenues for future abuse by 
Microsoft, and does nothing to repair the damage aready inflicted.
    Shafer Ramsey
    39 Play Rd.
    Enfield, CT. 06082



MTC-00003668

From: Peter Holt Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    I am concerned about the details of the Microsoft settlement. 
Specifically, I am concerned about the way in which non-profit 
organizations have no rights in the settlement as described by 
`Robert X. Cringely' (nom de plume) in his article at 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html. Microsoft 
has repeatedly shown themselves to be very clever at manipulating 
the word of the law rather than abiding by the spirit.
    It is especially important at the current time to carefully 
consider the probable future of computing. It seems that the trend 
is towards putting more functionality on the server and less on the 
client. Some day soon it may be that the only client software is the 
web browser. As a result, even if Microsoft`s behavior is modified 
as far as licensed software is concerned, there will be little 
affect on the company as their trend is towards licensed services.
    Some ideas for consideration:
    * Disallow the sale of computers with pre-installed software 
(including operating systems). Microsoft has advertised each version 
of Windows as easier to install than the last so this should pose no 
great hardship while at the same time affording competitors a window 
of opportunity to make a sale. The installation of most PC operating 
systems today consists of little more than inserting a CD-ROM 
and turning the computer on. Other

[[Page 24335]]

PC software only requires clicking on `setup'.
    * Require an `unlock' feature to be built into 
Microsoft products requiring registration so that once a product is 
deemed to be unsupported by Microsoft the registration key is no 
longer needed.
    * Require full media to be sold (not just `system 
restoration disks') so that the user can configure the 
software as they see fit.
    * End special pricing arrangements_the wholesale cost of 
Microsoft products should be the same for everyone.
    * Require the full disclosure of all APIs, file formats, network 
protocols etc. used by Microsoft and prohibit restricting their 
reproduction.
    * Accept RedHat`s offer to work with Microsoft by donating 
software for every school in the country to run on hardware supplied 
by Microsoft. Microsoft`s proposal is a bit like having a distiller 
convicted of anti-competitive practices donating whiskey to 21 year 
olds as penance_a transparent attempt to turn a penalty into a 
marketing opportunity.
    * Prohibit Microsoft from offering services which lock users in. 
For example, the single login facilities offered by Passport should 
be based on a protocol, implementable by any professional developer 
on any platform, so the customer can choose among competing login 
service providers.
    * Prohibit Microsoft from pursuing government sales when there 
is a competing open source product of commercial quality for some 
period (perhaps three years). Obviously the definition of 
`commercial quality' would have to be sorted out.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Holt Hoffman
    9 Ladbroke Road
    Greenville, SC 29615
    864-292-3729



MTC-00003669

From: bg@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am appalled, and extremely concerned, about language in the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft that will serve to (very 
possibly) destroy open source software projects that have helped the 
internet to thrive and which continue to provide high-quality, 
reliable computing alternatives to those of Microsoft. Open source 
and free software projects are important to all kinds of entities, 
including academia, small business, non-profits, and others. The 
Linux operating system is the ONLY operating system that provides 
even a hint of competition to Microsoft. Are you proposing a 
`settlement' that will actually serve to DIMINISH that 
competition??? Absolutely incredible. I would think that your 
proposed settlement would include provisions to force Microsoft to 
cooperate with interoperability (in a local network, for example) 
between Windows and other operating environments, so that customers 
can choose freely.
    Could it be that the DOJ attorneys lack an awareness of Open 
Source and free software? If so, I encourage the reading of the 
following book, which provides an excellent history: Rebel Code: The 
Inside Story of Linux and the Open Source Revolution by Glyn Moody, 
Perseus Publishing, 2001
    Thank you,
    Bill
    Bill Gurley, Supervisor of Technical Services
    Department of Chemistry
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville Campus
    CC:Senator Fred Thompson,Sen. Bill Frist



MTC-00003670

From: David G. Epling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I`d like my opinion known that I don`t like the idea of MS`s 
settlement that includes them expanding their market share and 
increasing their monopoly by giving free software to poor schools.
    Thank you.
    David Epling



MTC-00003671

From: Michael Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am quite disturbed at the notion of this 
`settlement'. No wonder Microsoft accept it with Gates 
smiling, he`s got out of jail free, passed go, and collected $200. 
When the bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer was deemed 
illegal, on appeal, even with all the issues over the objectivity 
and impartiality of the trial, how can the DOJ allow Microsoft to 
bundle more than ever into windows xp? How can the DOJ allow 
Microsoft to do to Real Networks and AOL what it did to topple 
Netscape and attempt to prevent users of other platforms from 
accessing the full net?
    Accepting this settlement is quite out of the question for 
providing benefits to consumers, in the long-term the only way to 
ensure that consumers do not suffer damages is to ensure that there 
is a competitive market, and Microsoft is doing it utmost, and will 
apparently be allowed to, to change the currently competitive media 
and messaging markets into uncompetitive markets as has been done 
with browsers.
    Faithfully,
    Michael S.A. Dawson
    Concerned User



MTC-00003672

From: John Raithel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern (and it should deeply concern us all), I 
am writing to attempt to express my astonishment and disgust with 
the proposed `settlement' of the Microsoft monopoly 
case. I have been an active professional in the computer industry 
for 21 years, and my experience has included everything from large-
scale systems to customized chip solutions, and from software from 
the giants to software from the open-source programmer.
    I`m sorry, but Microsoft must be broken up. I have seen more 
than one company abandon products excellent products, products 
already in beta and near release date that have been 
enthusiastically reviewed by industry journals I have seen, I say, 
these companies simply drop their product at the announced entry of 
Microsoft (MS) into the field. Even though MS at the time had no 
competing product as yet, and in at least one case it never did 
develop the `product'. The bottom line cannot be: 
`Will the economy take a hit if we break-up MS?' It may, 
it may not, but in the long run the economy necessarily reaps the 
benefits of open markets, energetic competition, and all those 
things that restrictions on monopolistic presences have on the 
market.
    MS must compete. It does not now. Any `solution' 
that does not take this into account and correct it wll simply have 
to be revisited every few years, at immense cost, until the 
correction is made.
    Thank-you for your kind attention to this.
    John
    John Raithel
    raithel@rahul.net
    650 726-3931



MTC-00003673

From: twosheds@cray.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Concerning the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I would like 
to raise some concerns with you.
    If this case is to be `settled', it should be 
settled in favor of the Public interest. Not in the interest of any 
single business or lobbying entity. Accepting that premise, the 
settlement, as proposed, should be rejected because it serves to 
further entrench Microsoft`s monopoly in several business areas.
    As proposed, the settlement would allow Microsoft discretion to 
prevent Free/Open source software from accessing the software 
APIs_in order to guard Microsoft`s intellectual property. This 
argument assumes that the Free/Open source movement is a business 
entity seeking to capitalize on Microsoft`s development efforts, the 
truth is that the Free/Open source movement is not a business at 
all. It is simply software developers seeking to produce high 
quality software for the good of the public at large.
    Making the APIs publicly available to any interested 
organization_not just competitors_would force Microsoft 
to compete on a level playing-field with other software producers, 
and far from undermining their intellectual-property, it would 
assure interoperability between Microsoft`s formidable installed-
base of software and the software produced by their competitors. 
This interoper- ability can certainly be considered to be in the 
public interest.
    Microsoft has repeatedly tried to cast this movement as being 
`un-American' because it isn`t concerned with a profit 
motive. Similarly, the American tradition of Barn raising must be 
viewed as `un-American.' Indeed any effort by `the 
few' which benefits `the many' must then be 
considered `un-American.' To that, I submit that it is 
Microsoft that fails to understand appreciate

[[Page 24336]]

 what America is all about_and underscores the need to force 
the awareness upon them that the world doesn`t exist to be their 
unwilling profit base.
    Especially if preferred alternatives are forced from viability.
    Microsoft has proposed supplying schools with `PC 
standard' hardware and their own software. Taking this course 
would artificially promote Microsoft in one of the few market areas 
where it does not already enjoy monopoly status, and over 
time_as the supplied OSes require updates, Microsoft would be 
in a prime position to leverage that foothold to assure that others 
could not compete in that area.
    Thank you for your attention.
    JAY VOLLMER
    TWOSHEDS@CRAY.COM, JVOLLMER1@MN.RR.COM
    952-738-8201



MTC-00003674

From: Tom Glascock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sunday, December 9, 2001
    My name is Thomas S. Glascock and I live in Cincinnati OH. I 
strongly urge the United States Department of Justice to reconsider 
the lightweight `settlement' that it has proposed to 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has shown in the past, and will in the future, that it 
will take advantage of every possible loophole in this 
`remedy.'
    The settlement as it stands today does not have any sort of 
punishment element in it, which will only serve to encourage 
Microsoft in its illegal, unethical and immoral behavior.
    I very strongly urge the USDOJ to add a punishment element to 
the settlement as a deterrent to their illegal corporate behavior.
    Corporations are entities designed to shield individuals from 
personal liability when running a business, not as a shields for 
breaking the law. The corporation itself is guilty of a federal 
crime, and the corporation should be harshly punished, as though it 
were the actions of an individual.
    Thank you
    Thomas S. Glascock



MTC-00003675

From: Margaret Leber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m a professional software engineer with over thirty years 
experience in the industry, and I`m writing to express my extreme 
concern about some of the language in the proposed settlement.
    Section III(J)(2) says that Microsoft need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    This language creates a huge loophole for Microsoft to crush an 
important element of thier competition today, namely open-source 
software created under the auspices of non-commercial entities. 
Considering that only not-for-profit organizations have flourished 
producing software that competes for technical space with MSFT code 
(considering they`ve driven the bulk of the for-profit alternatives 
out by illegal practices they`ve already been convicted of) to allow 
this language to stand will allow MSFT to freeze-out the open-source 
community through nondisclosure of their interfaces. This will 
cripple important open-source projects like SAMBA and the Apache 
Project. MSFT has been quite vocal in the press about the effect 
open-source has had on their business. In this country, we don`t 
permit convicted felons to own firearms lest they use them to comit 
another crime. Please don`t hand a convicted monopolist yet another 
weapon in this battle.
    Margaret Leber
    163 North Whitehall Road
    Jeffersonville PA 19043



MTC-00003676

From: Joe Stump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recently I read the following editorial:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    And share the author`s concerns that Open Source and non-profits 
are not adequately being protected under the final agreement with 
Microsoft. The simple fact is that MS needs to play fair and keep 
any/all protocols it creates open to the public. Imagine if Einstein 
had patented E = mc\2\ or if Newton had made the laws of physics 
proprietary!
    Joe Stump
    Joe Stump 



MTC-00003677

From: SpamSpamSpam
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 12/9/01 7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is BAD for the USA. The 
settlement only extends Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Essentially they are only giving the money back to themselves. 
And gaining marketshare in one of the few areas that they are weak. 
It does not provide any remedy, to prevent Microsoft`s monopolistic 
tactics. Break up Microsoft while there is still a chance for some 
competition.
    DO NOT accept the proposed settlement.



MTC-00003678

From: Keith E. Laidig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Madam/Sir:
    As a small business owner, I would like to put in my two cents 
regarding the proposed settlement in the Mircosoft anti-trust case. 
The settlement is nothing more than a complete capitulation by the 
government to a company which has been found guilty of using its 
monopoly repeated a in anticompetitive fashion. The 
`penalties` do nothing to curtail Microsoft`s illegal behavior 
and, in fact, are designed to extend the company`s monopoly further. 
As more innovative companies are crushed by the continued illegal 
behavior of a convicted monopolist, the government twiddles its 
thumbs.
    Innovation suffers. The public gets a poor product at a 
ridculously high price. Pathetic.
    Keith E. Laidig
    Keith E. Laidig, Ph.D., M.S., M.Phil.
    Formix Research Laboratories
    laidig@formix.com
    http://www.formix.com



MTC-00003679

From: clps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ms:
    I respectfully do not consider allowing Microsoft to `donate` 
their software to schools to be any kind of `penalty' or 
`remedy', quite the opposite, in fact. By allowing the 
settlement to continue as currently proposed, Microsoft has turned a 
legal defeat into a commercial victory for their monopolistic ways.
    A more prudent penalty would be to force Microsoft to provide 
either cash money, or hardware void of Microsofts operating system, 
instead forcing Microsoft to donate their competitors software, 
whether it be from Apple, or a Linux distribution, or some other 
non-Microsoft product.
    Please also force Microsoft to publish their APIs, and restrict 
them from anti-competitive practices, especially against not-for-
profit software ventures, such as Linux, Apache, Sendmail, etc., so 
that both free and commercial software interests can operate in a 
business climate which encourages open innovation.
    Sincerely,
    R. Taylor
    PMB 210, 2471 Solano Avenue
    Napa, CA 94558



MTC-00003680

From: Howard Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Computer Systems Administrator with 16 years professional 
experience. I write with concern over the revised proposed Final 
Judgment of United States v. Microsoft. In particular, I am 
concerned with the language of section III(J)(2) of the revised 
proposed final Judgment which reads:
    `(No provision of this Final Judgment shall:...) 1. 
Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no 
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of 
intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for 
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or 
shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the

[[Page 24337]]

authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at 
its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation 
or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by 
Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with 
Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which 
specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of 
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.'
    Some background regarding my experience with Microsoft software 
will help to clarify my concerns with this language.
    For the first five years of my career, I used first the VMS, 
then the Unix operating systems exclusively. Microsoft`s DOS and 
Windows operating systems were not considered by most of my 
customers (Scientists and graduate students at the Physics 
Department of UCSB) to be suitable for their purposes. In 1991, I 
got a new job at a commercial company, Octel Communications in 
Milpitas California, supporting their engineers. At Octel, 
Microsoft`s dominance of the market for PC operating systems was 
well under way. The engineers mostly used Unix (Sun`s version) but 
the rest of the company used DOS and Windows 3.11. For me, as a Unix 
Systems Administrator, this posed an immediate problem. The Windows 
systems were networked together using a Microsoft protocol called 
SMB. The details of this protocol were partly available, and partly 
kept secret (or at least not published) by Microsoft. This meant 
that resources on the Windows network, such as disks and printers, 
were unavailable to users on the Unix network, and vice-versa. This 
was sub-optimal in a number of ways. It led to situations in which 
workgroups would have two printers, on each for Windows and Unix. 
Files would be shared using floppy disks. Searching for a solution, 
I found a wonderful software package on the Internet called Samba. 
This software, written by clever programmer in Australia, named 
Andrew Tridgell, implemented communications between the incompatible 
Unix and Windows worlds. Using Samba, I could make my Unix computers 
and disks available to Windows users. I could also make Windows 
printers available to Unix users. Getting at Windows files from Unix 
was less well supported, but it was possible. This was OK because at 
that time the Windows boxes tended to be desktop machines, whereas 
the Unix computers were generally larger server boxes. This meant 
most of the disk space we wanted to share was on Unix, and Samba let 
us do that very well.
    Two points about Samba are relevant in my concern over the 
language cited in my first paragraph. First, since the SMB protocol 
in use on Windows 3.11 differed in important details from the 
various published specifications, Andrew Tridgell had to 
`reverse engineer' the protocol. (When he started he 
didn`t even know there were any published specs. By the time he got 
his hands on them, he had implemented enough on his own to know that 
certain details were wrong or missing.) This may have been due to a 
desire by Microsoft to keep the details of their implementation 
secret or commercial advantage. Most Finance departments in industry 
look askance at duplicating resources like printers across an entire 
organization. At Octel, there was pressure from Finance to 
consolidate the computing platforms in use due to the added expense. 
Since Finance used Windows, that was the platform they wanted to 
standardize on. The second point about Samba is it was developed by 
volunteers, and given away for free on the Internet. This model of 
software distribution is now more familiar, (It goes by various 
labels, depending on who is describing it and on what software 
license is in use. `Free Software' and `Open 
Source Software' are two popular labels. Based on its license, 
the former is the proper label for Samba.) but it was novel in the 
commercial world in 1991.
    Which brings me finally back to the language of Section 
III(J)(2) of the revised proposed final Judgment reproduced above. 
One of the several criteria for which `No provision of this 
Final judgment shall ... Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any 
license ...' for its security related APIs to a `person 
or entity' is that the entity ` meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business...' (d).
    The problem with this clause as it relates to the current 
discussion is that Samba, as related above, does not have a 
`viable business.' Samba is given away for free by 
volunteers. It is nonetheless a critical piece of software in 
ensuring that computers running Microsoft`s OS `play 
nice' with rival Operating Systems. If Microsoft is allowed, 
at its sole discretion, to withhold APIs from entities it deems to 
not have a `viable business,' there is a real danger 
Microsoft will do so for projects, like Samba, that tend to soften 
the power of Microsoft`s monopoly in the market for PC operating 
systems. The quoted section limits this clause to APIs `.. 
related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license 
enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or 
third party intellectual property protection mechanisms.' 
However this limitation doesn`t rescue Samba, which must use 
`authentication/authorization security' mechanisms to 
access resources on networks running Microsoft`s software.
    Based on this concern, I strongly urge you to amend the language 
in the Final Judgment to place the decision in the hands of the 
Technical Committee set up under section IV(B) of the Final 
Judgment, rather than Microsoft`s
    Thank you for your attention,
    Howard Owen
    EGBOK Consultants
    hbo@egbok.com +1-650-339-5733



MTC-00003681

From: Tim O`Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to let you know that I have serious concerns about the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. It does little or nothing 
to impede Microsoft`s continued abuse of its monopoly position, and 
in fact includes provisions that will potentially give Microsoft 
even greater power. There is so little to like in this settlement, 
and so much to dislike, that it hardly bears detailed comment.
    I am a well known high-tech publisher. My books cover both 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft technologies. I understand Microsoft`s 
position that they remain vulnerable to new technologies that may 
disrupt their monopoly, but I don`t buy it. Yes, they are now 
competing for new markets in the next generation of internet 
applications, and they don`t hold all the cards that they held at 
their peak. But they still have many unfair advantages, and every 
indication that they intend to use them to destroy both competitors 
and an open market.
    I am particularly concerned about Microsoft`s attacks on free 
and open source software, and the fact that the settlement does 
little to protect open source developers, who compete with Microsoft 
in many major markets (for example, Apache is Microsoft`s biggest 
competitor in the web server market), but are not commercial 
entities protected at all by the settlement.
    In addition, I am extremely concerned that Microsoft has been 
allowed to destroy competitors such as Netscape, to undermine Sun`s 
Java, and to suffer no real penalties. No action by the Justice 
Department will restore Netscape or the competitive health of the 
web browser business, but at the very least, Microsoft ought to be 
forced to pay a significant settlement to web browser and server 
vendors who were harmed by their actions.
    In addition, my ideal settlement would require full advance 
disclosure of all proprietary Microsoft file formats (since they use 
their control over data formats to force application lock-in), and 
open source code for all portions of applications that read or write 
files in those data formats. We don`t need source code to all of 
Windows or Microsoft Office_just those parts that are used to 
enforce user lock-in. And this source code needs to be completely 
free and in the open, not in some restricted release to Microsoft 
approved vendors!
    However, if you do go through with the settlement, it is 
essential that the people who are set to watch over Microsoft be 
convinced Microsoft critics, not apologists for the company. I`d 
love to see Larry Lessig, who raised so many Microsoft hackles when 
he was proposed as a special master in the case, put on them as a 
full time watchdog! Microsoft is a great company, but they have 
broken the law, and they need to be restrained.
    Tim O`Reilly @ O`Reilly & Associates, Inc.
    1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
    +1 707-829-0515, FAX +1 707-829-0104
    tim@oreilly.com, http://www.oreilly.com
    CC:tim



MTC-00003682

From: esoR ocsirF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:19pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main

[[Page 24338]]

competitor: Free and Open Source Software (`Free' 
defined as `without restriction' not `free of 
cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers. It is also essential that non-commercial 
groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have 
questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to 
allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as 
they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors 
as they have done so many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.



MTC-00003683

From: Scruffy323@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is steve morin a resident of new york and a student in 
massachusetts. I am a computer science major and graduating this 
year and have been following the case since it`s inception and the 
industry in general. I have been reading about the settlement and 
don`t believe it effectively does a single thing. Any proposals that 
includes donations of free computing software by microsoft are 
unfair because it then allows them more of a grasp up up and coming 
users through the school system and costs them virtually nothing. 
More requests like the proposals, for them to make microsoft office 
for linux, and mac os`s, and including the java environment with the 
operation system are moves in the right direction as far as curbing 
monopolistic practices. The current settlement is no more than a 
joke to microsoft, and evidence has indicated in publications that 
this sentiment is also shared by upper level microsoft management. I 
hope that the government takes more stringent measures in the 
Microsoft Settlement that actually encourages fair practices in 
buisness and to the benifit of the american people and non-forprofit 
organizations including protection of non-forprofit software and 
computer technology companies
    Sincerely,
    Steve Morin



MTC-00003684

From: Mark Stribling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my concern over the currently proposed 
punishment for Microsoft for its antitrust violations to donate more 
than $1 billion in software, hardware and money to schools. I have 
several complaints with this sentence. First, the language of the 
settlement does not adequately regard non-profit and non-business 
entities. Today, particularly the open source software providers 
stand to lose the most if the current settlement commences. Apache, 
Perl, and Sendmail are not afforded any protection from Microsoft`s 
predatory business practices because the language in the settlement 
does not refer to software providers, rather, software vendors. 
Since these software projects are not for profit companies, wording 
like, `...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, ...' (Section III(J)(2)) offers a 
lack of protection for those companies that Microsoft most competes 
with today. I.e., those who should be most protected from its 
monopoly.
    The second problem with the current settlement is that $1.5 
billion is significantly smaller than the amount of money and liquid 
assets that Microsoft has. It is hardly a fraction of the company`s 
worth, and not even a dent in yearly profits. Far from even a slap 
on the wrist, the amount of settlement makes a mockery of the DoJ. 
It is a punishment in name only. The final problem with the 
Microsoft settlement is in the structure of the penalty payment. In 
requiring MS to give software and hardware to schools, the 
settlement acts to not only enforce MS`s current monopoly, but to 
actually strengthen it. Currently, Apple computers struggles to 
retain its current presence in the educational sector. Linux and 
alternative operating systems has worked hard and barely has any 
presence in schools. By making MS give out software and hardware to 
schools, they have less incentive to use Mac or Linux based 
machines. Not only that, but the future costs of reeducating their 
employees in the use of Mac or Linux would act as a strong 
deterrence to make the switch and create a barrier to entry. Thus 
Microsoft is in an even stronger position of monopolistic control.
    Thank you.
    Mark Stribling
    CC:Jer Wood



MTC-00003685

From: Joseph P Frazee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft Settlement agreement. 
Speaking as both a user of Free Open Source software and a systems 
manager for The Ohio State University Libraries, I depend on the low 
cost and high interoperability of Free Open Source software as it 
exists today. This low cost and high interoperability has been made 
possible by companies adhering to open standards and participating 
in fair market practices that include making protocols and formats 
open and accessible.
    By allowing a corporation such as Microsoft to legally exclude 
themselves from providing opportunities for interoperability via 
open standards, you are effectively ensuring that Free Open Source 
software will not be able to compete. It will then die.
    This would be a tragedy for the organization I am in and 
organizations that I have worked with in the past. We depend on Free 
Open Source software to do jobs ranging from enterprise Internet 
services to desktop support tools. This has become increasingly true 
amidst the ailing economy where pay-for software, support contracts, 
and maintenance fees have become too expensive. Do not let Free Open 
Source software die because monopolies were allowed to prevail. Do 
no forgot this country`s past of furthering open standards. Two 
hundred years ago we paid Eli Whitney to give us open standards for 
gun production. Do not let us now pay William Gates so that we never 
have an open standard again.
    Joseph P Frazee
    E-mail: frazee.23@osu.edu
    The Ohio State University Libraries
    Phone: (614) 688-5432
    UNIX ManagerPager: (614) 731-4919



MTC-00003686

From: Robert White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    To be just and effective the Microsoft settlement must include 
two conceptual modifications.

[[Page 24339]]

    (1) Microsoft`s duty to disclose must not be limited only to 
existing commercial concerns. The so-called free software community 
must also have access to the documentation and functionality of the 
Microsoft products. This doesn`t necessarily have anything to do 
with the free software community itself, even it that is a vital 
concern. In practice, in order to start a commercial software 
venture a person or group needs to do a `proof of 
concept' before they know if their idea has any viability. In 
essence, if Microsoft is allowed to limit the determination of their 
APIs (etc) to already established commercial concerns, they are 
being allowed to effectively prevent any new competitors to start-up 
in the field. This would pro-actively and unacceptably repress new 
software concerns both `free' and 
`commercial' from competing with Microsoft.
    (2) All provisions in existing and future licences must be 
vetted to remove the Microsoft-worst-kept-secret conditions that do 
not allow hardware vendors to co-install non-Microsoft operating 
systems on the hardware they deliver. (i.e. the no-dual-boot-to-
competitor provisions) While this too directly affects Linux and 
other free operating systems it has also been used to crush 
commercial competitors. One only has to look at the way the BeOS 
operating system was blocked from commercial distribution with new 
hardware. This Microsoft limit on hardware vendors was used by 
Microsoft to gravely injure that competitor and eventually was 
directly responsible for the collapse of that company. They simply 
couldn`t open any distribution channels for their arguably superior 
product. This is the very behavior that must be prevented in the 
future.
    Robert White
    Newcastle, WA
    425-228-8825
    rwhite@pobox.com



MTC-00003687

From: CareySB@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current proposed settlement doesn`t punish 
Microsoft at all for their predatory practices. In fact, I believe 
the settlement will bolster their legal position for further market 
dominating practices.
    If you want to stop the juggernaut:
    1. allow MS to keep their compiler and application software 
divisions, but
    2. force MS to put their OS source code in public domain. They 
could still be allowed to sell it though.
    Carey Brown
    CareySB@aol.com



MTC-00003688

From: Jessica Blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:34pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgment
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a longtime (8-9 years) user of Linux and other 
NONCOMMERCIAL operating systems and software titles, I am deeply 
concerned by a conspicuous absence from the Proposed Final Judgement 
(as I learned from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html). Apparently, it is designed to protect 
businesses_ but not non-profit organizations or individuals 
(who Microsoft apparently will still be free to pursue using 
whatever tricks necessary).
    The market realities in the computer world have changed. Some of 
the most credible threats to Microsoft nowadays come from 
noncommercial entities and to free products like Linux.
    I would like to urge you in the strongest possible terms to give 
ALL entities who write software (big businesses, small businesses, 
non-profit organizations, individuals, etc.) equal protection from 
Microsoft. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any 
questions or comments.
    Many thanks!
    Jessica L. Blank



MTC-00003689

From: Wim Coekaerts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/01 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    After reading the proposed settlement (Final Judgement), I 
cannot see how any of this means microsoft has been punished or 
found guilty of fiolating antitrust laws. The only thing that is 
very obvious about the proposal is that Microsoft came out as a 
winner, not as the guilty party, and this will make them stronger 
and gives them a wildcard to do even more harm to bigger companies 
like IBM, Oracle, Sun and everyone else that competes with 
Microsoft.
    I agree in general that the government should not interfere too 
much with how business is run and allow for competition but in this 
case they totally destroyed a big company (whether or not Netscape 
made good or bad business decisions around this is not really the 
point, the point is that microsoft used their power to trash 
Netscape and netscape tried to find a way out but got squashed.)
    It was also very clear in the case that Bill Gates was holding 
back information, not cooperating and being very arrogant, which he 
got repriminded for, but ultimately gets away with. This alone shows 
how strong they feel, even in such a big and important case, that 
the current legislature will leave them alone. I am a consumer, so 
far, microsoft has not released one product that works as 
advertised, that is the least bit open, in every case where they 
supposedly supopr a standard, they find a way to make it just 
incompatible with competing products. Yet, many companies I would 
like to buy something from, are forced to use Microsoft only 
products when you purchas something (dell, compaq etc), yes they do 
offer Some alternatives, but not to consumers for instance.
    Do I want the company to go away ? No.. But I was hoping there 
would be a fair trial, and a fair settlement or punishment. Not a 
hidden present for destroying companies that started the whole 
internet revolution (which microsoft at first thoght aws totally 
stupid...)
    So is this tomorrows world ? Break the law, do it at such a 
large scale that thousands of jobs are lost, go to court and get 
rewarded for it? The day this proposal was released was a sad day.
    Sincerely,
    Wim Coekaerts



MTC-00003690

From: Paul Scaer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice Enforcement Officers,
    Please don`t let Microsoft shut linux and open source software 
(Apache, Sendmail, PERL) out of meaningful use of the internet and 
the software world. Section III J 2 of the Proposed Final Judgement 
seems to be set to do that. Schools and other non-profit agencies 
that are using linux and Apache would be even further damaged in 
such a case. We rely on open source to allow us to keep up with the 
best in educational network products for our students. One can 
already see the noose tightening around our computer freedom with 
the xp licensing requirements and the refusal of Microsoft to 
discount educational use of its ware. The monopoly only gets 
stronger, it seems.
    The proposed language of this judgement will allow Microsoft to 
write out SAMBA and other open source efforts from interaction with 
its products. These open source efforts serve real educational 
purpose for the schools of America.
    Microsoft was found `guilty'. If you accept the 
proposed language of III J2, it will reward Microsoft for its 
monopolistic, anti-competitive rip-offs. Don`t let their army of 
lawyers defeat the verdict of the federal courts. Enlarge your legal 
definitions to safeguard the precious volunteer work of not-for-
profits, please!
    Sincerely,
    Paul Scaer, Librarian
    Masterman School
    Philadelphia, PA 19130



MTC-00003691

From: Keith Krieger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The settlement language largely allows Microsoft to stifle 
competition and eliminate any trace of free market mechanisms with 
the computing community. Limiting the APIs in the manner laid out by 
the settlement are limiting to Microsoft`s main competition: Free 
and Open Source Software. (Free is defined here as `without 
restriction'. Free is not meant to be `free of 
cost').
    This software is created by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This provides great benefits 
for American consumers. Free and Open Source Software is *the* 
essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. Consumers 
were harmed by Microsoft`s actions, not necessarily business 
interests. It is essential that this pro-consumer movement be helped 
by the settlement. Instead they are pointedly discriminated against 
by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses',

[[Page 24340]]

with Microsoft being able to interpret that as they wish.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals should be able to ask questions of Microsoft regarding 
these APIs, and have them answered publicly. If it seems too 
difficult to allow any individual to ask such a question, an 
electronic petition process could be used instead, as long as a 
group of individuals can have the same weight as a commercial 
organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement 
and is of large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups be able to 
access API documentation, and have questions answered by Microsoft. 
In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have discretion on 
any aspect of this manner. They can use that to further punish their 
most stringent competitors.
    It is also dangerous to grant discretion on security. While it 
is acceptable that they be allowed a short private period to resolve 
security issues before making them public, all aspects of their 
systems must be made public. It is easy to add security aspects to 
nearly any portion of a system. It is potentially a good thing that 
they add security at many parts of their system.
    However, they should not need to be private about their security 
measures to ensure the effectiveness of that security. The Free/Open 
Source communities have created large amounts of software that is 
secure while being open. Microsoft should do the same. This process 
is has been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer 
security has existed.



MTC-00003692

From: Grant Morrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am an avid Microsoft Windows and Microsoft products user. I 
have read the settlement the Department of Justice has proposed for 
the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft. There are several items 
within the settlement that I do not agree with. I not only do not 
agree with them, I also believe they will allow Microsoft to gain an 
even stronger hold on the software market than before this case was 
brought. Here are my reasons:
    (1) This settlement does not address free software`s rights. In 
today`s software market, the Internet and many thousands of servers 
and computers across the U.S. and the globe are run by Free-
Software. Under this proposed settlement, in Section III(J)(2) 
specifically, it contains some very strong language against free 
software/non-profit ventures.
    Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    This is unacceptable. Microsoft`s biggest competitor to their 
Internet Information Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache 
Foundation, a non-profit, free-software group. Apache has a 
currently larger market share and is a more stable and less 
vulnerable software platform. By not allowing free-software/non-
profit software groups to be able to hold their weight against their 
commercial counter-parts as this settlement does not, then Microsoft 
will be able to use this settlement to their advantage, and gain 
market share in areas they do not even currently dominate.
    I hope my comments will be taken of note and that there can be a 
settlement reached that addresses these concerns.
    Most respectfully,
    Grant Morrow
    Student, Southern Illinois University,
    Carbondale, IL



MTC-00003693

From: Andrew Morris
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing express my favor for settling the Microsoft anti-
trust case as it currently stands. Anti-trust laws were put on the 
books to protect consumers and I feel that consumers only stand to 
suffer by continuing this court case any longer. Please work to 
settle the case as soon as possible. Microsoft need not be punished 
further.
    Andrew W. Morris
    Senior Project Manager
    Winning Solutions, Inc.
    941.267.2749 ext.101



MTC-00003694

From: Matthew Kennedy
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/9/01 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How much money did microsoft contribute towards Bushes election?
    Matthew Kennedy
    Programmer ITD CQU
    ph +61 7 4930 6899 ah 4922 2854



MTC-00003695

From: Tim Hockin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed microsoft settlement is a farce. Microsoft has 
railroaded the DoJ to the point where MS will actually BENEFIT from 
their punishment. Explictly omitted are non-profit organizations. 
Microsoft`s biggest fear, Open Source software, is already at enough 
of a disadvantage. This settlement widens the gap.
    In the meantime, all the companies that have gone down the 
toilet, all the venture capital, all the jobs, all the ideas and 
technologies will not come back. They are lost to technology, and as 
long as MS is running the DoJ, they will remain so.
    If this is the best settlement the DoJ can arrange, then the 
anti-trust division should cease to exist as a whole. We`re better 
off without the beurocracy, the bullshit, and the inability to 
actually acheive a goal. If I didn`t have some faith left, I`d swear 
that Bill Gates ran the DoJ, the courts, and the White House. This 
`settlement' is all about the USA, the PEOPLE, being 
forced to settle for whatever MS decides, yet again. The people who 
accepted this deal should be embarrassed, humiliated, and most 
importantly FIRED for the pathetic excuse for justice they have 
enforced.
    The United States of Microsoft.
    How wonderful.
    Tim Hockin
    CA resident, software engineer, open-source user, and potential 
expatriot.



MTC-00003696

From: Gavin Treadgold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:00pm
Subject: Proposed MSFT Settlement
    I am writing this an a concerned non-US citizen. I know my 
opinion probably doesn`t count for much, but I feel obliged to write 
anyway.
    The proposed settlement deal is hardly just for the average 
citizen. By allowing Microsoft to provide software and hardware in 
the education market, it distinctly disadvantages one of the leading 
companies in that sector, Apple. The proposal is simply allowing 
Microsoft to purchase market share that will allow to to become even 
stronger. At a minimum for the education proposal to be acceptable, 
Microsoft should be required to front up the proposed settlement 
value in cash, and allow a non-partisan group to determine 
appropriate expenditure_after all, perhaps it could go towards 
more teachers to help the really disadvantaged.
    I used to believe the the United States of America provided one 
of the fairest and most just countries in the world. Sadly, after 
recent events in the Microsoft antitrust trial, it is hard to 
justify this enthusiasm, and the only hope that remains is that the 
remaining states that haven`t settled, and the European Union have 
more strength and determination to bring Microsoft to true justice 
for their anti-competitive behaviour.
    Gavin Treadgold
    New Zealand



MTC-00003698

From: Paul Golovin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 12/9/01 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Cringely has my `proxy': http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    I have watched several of his shows, he`s smarter than I am and 
better informed, but shares my views. Hence the proxy, I think you 
should do whatever he says.
    Paul Golovin



MTC-00003699

From: Ricardus Vincencius Wielgosz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:11pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Dear sir or Madam:
    I have grave concerns about the recent DOJ/Microsoft settlement.

[[Page 24341]]

    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
specifically discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publicly. If 
it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Regards,
    Richard V. Wielgosz...



MTC-00003701

From: Richard Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please dont let the evil empire off the hook so easily. Im my 
opinion this final judgment will only make Microsoft stronger and 
put them in a better position to stomp on us end users.
    Rikki_RHCE, HP-UX Certified Administrator.
    _Solaris 7 Certified Systems and Network Administrator.
    Bell Labs Unix_Reach out and grep someone.
    Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, 
poorly.



MTC-00003702

From: Joe Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I urge the courts involved to reject the proposed settlement. It 
will only serve to enforce the very things Microsoft was convicted 
of doing. I suggest you find a way to force them to play fairly, 
publish their APIs, use accepted standards and to not use their 
monopoly power to ruthlessly crush their comptetion whether it be 
applications under windows, alternate operating systems or open-
source software.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Campbell



MTC-00003703

From: Joshua Stratton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Frankly, the proposed settlement is the biggest miscarriage of 
justice in the past ten years. There is no other way to describe it.
    How does the market recover from the harms caused by the 
Microsoft monopoly if the monopoly is strengthened by further 
entrenching their platform, by letting the company achieve its 
goals?
    If you wanted to help education, you would merely tell Microsoft 
to fork over cold, hard, cash. Schools that wanted MS products could 
get them; schools that wanted anything else could do so as well.
    Furthermore, the API descriptions won`t be made available to 
some of MS`s biggest competitors: participatns in free and Open 
Source software products! Even government software developers (e.g. 
at NASA, NIST, USGS) would not benefit.
    Given that I`m in law school, and am hoping to practice in a 
technology-related field in a few years, you`re doing little to 
engender trust in the competence or intelligence of the DOJ. 
Antitrust laws should not be used to throw violators into a `briar 
patch` as it were.
    I would STRONGLY urge reconsideration: possibly along the lines 
of breaking MS up into its individual business units (e.g. OS, Apps, 
Internet, Games, Hardware, etc.) or creating several smaller but 
full-fledged MS`s that could directly compete against one another. 
At this point though, Bill Gates is surely laughing about how 
antitrust law has been perverted to strengthen his monopoly. He`s 
laughing at you, and he`s laughing at anyone else in the world who 
is concerned about the detriment that MS has caused to the industry. 
If you have any courage, any brains, or any concern for consumers 
and industry, you`ll put a stop to that very quickly.
    Thanks for your attention
    Joshua Stratton
    Rutgers Law Class of 2004
    cpt@camden.rutgers.edu



MTC-00003704

From: Richie Laager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust 
case is fatally flawed. It places commercial entities on a 
`more level' playing field than not-for-profit entities. 
As a full-time user of Linux (www.kernel.org) (www.linux.com) 
(www.linux.org), I see (on a daily basis) Microsoft`s growing 
monopoly. By allowing this proposed settlement, you would be serving 
to strengthen Microsoft`s monopoly.
    I suggest that Microsoft be forced to donate large sums of money 
to the Free Software Foundation (www.fsf.org), the Electronic 
Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org), the Apache Software Foundation 
(www.apache.org), the Samba project (www.samba.org), and finally, 
the WINE project (www.winehq.com). I have selected these for the 
following reasons:
_FSF: They promote Free Software, which is being crushed by 
Microsoft`s monopoly.
_EFF: They are an industry watchdog for the rights of users, 
which Microsoft has blatantly violated.
_Apache: They create a competing webserver to Microsoft`s IIS. 
Because of Microsoft`s monopoly, IIS has been forced on many 
companies, and it`s long history of security vulnerabilities has 
cost the world billions of dollars. Apache is much more secure than 
IIS, and is being developed by an *open* community.
_Samba: The Samba project aims to create an open 
implementation of Microsoft`s file and printer sharing technology. 
This technology was created by a group of companies, but now, 
Microsoft has squeezed them out of the development of this protocol. 
Once the Samba project had implemented the core features of the SMB 
protocol used by Windows, Microsoft changed the way the protocol 
worked. (This was done in Windows 2000 and up.) Such changes have 
the disadvantage of reducing interoperability. This even applies to 
those users that run Windows only.
_WINE: The WINE project is attempting to reproduce the Windows 
API for Unix. This will allow users the flexibility to run Windows 
applications on non-Windows

[[Page 24342]]

operating systems, without the need to pay Microsoft. The WINE 
project faces the same situation as the Samba project, except on a 
much greater scale. Also, Microsoft is undoubtedly planning to use 
it`s monopoly in the operating system market (e.g. the Windows 
product line), the browser market (e.g. Internet Explorer), and the 
Internet portal (e.g. MSN, Hotmail, Expedia, and MANY MANY MORE 
websites) to push it`s .NET technology. The .NET technology will be 
terrible for consumers, as it will place the confidential, personal 
data of millions of people in the hands of Microsoft. ONE small 
security leak in just ONE application of just ONE company would 
place all this data at the risk of being stolen and misused. 
Besides, many of the concepts of the .NET system have been stolen 
from other companies. For example, Microsoft recently created a new 
computer programming language called C# (pronounced C-sharp). A 
simple search on the Internet will reveal many websites that explain 
in great detail how similar it is to the Java language invented by 
Sun Microsystems (www.sun.com). (So much for Microsoft`s 
`innovation.')
    Also, to further detail the Free Software situation, I offer the 
following: When Microsoft decided to create a more secure networking 
stack for Windows 2000, they looked no further than FreeBSD 
(www.freebsd.com). They simply integrated code developed by 
individuals in their spare time into a product and sold it. (This 
was allowed by the license of FreeBSD, of course.) Of course, 
Microsoft promoted Windows 2000`s more secure TCP/IP stack. It was 
yet another one of their so-called `innovations.'
    To close, I`d just like to point out that I am a 15 year-old 
high school student. In my spare time, I am employed as a 
professional Java programmer. If I can go into such a detailed 
explanation of the flaws of the proposed Microsoft settlement, why 
hasn`t the Department of Justice figured this out already? Does it 
have something to do with the fact that you`re too busy prosecuting 
a certain Russian for a piece of software he developed to allow a 
certain U.S. companies software to comply with Russian law?
    Where have our rights gone in the digital age? I was taught that 
the United States was `the land of the free, and the home of 
the brave.' It seems to me the United States is the land where 
freedom is paid for, and bravery is simply a word in a large book 
known to some as `the dictionary.'
    Our freedom has been reduced to the level of an animal`s. At 
least I can rest assured that `all animals are created 
equal.' Oh wait, I almost forgot `some animals are more 
equal than others.' Don`t reinforce this timeless quote on 
political oppression by allowing the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time,
    Richard Laager



MTC-00003705

From: David Peacock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the US Government`s settlement is unfair punishment for 
Microsoft. It is too easy on Microsoft. It allows them to get a good 
foothold on the Education market.
    Microsoft was declared a monopoly and this is not allowed in the 
US law. Stop the monopoly.
    Microsoft should be severely punished for their practice of 
punishing companies who do business with their competitors. As I 
understand it, Microsoft will punish their partners who also partner 
with a Microsoft competitor. Microsoft will bully and charge these 
partners more money.
    This is not fair.
    Microsoft products cost too much money!
    Microsoft is a monopoly, so they overcharge their customers.
    It is not fair, when products like Linux are almost free.
    Wayne David Peacock
    San Francisco



MTC-00003706

From: Zzyzx Calysta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mail : Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Renata..
    It perplexes me how a group of obviously intelligent people 
could not see that Microsoft placing $1 Billion in Intel hardware 
and Microsoft software into the school systems will do nothing more 
than cement Microsofts monopoly position for the forseeable future.
    Not to mention what it will do to Apple, who is the predominant 
player in the educational market.
    Users of that software will come out of the school system 
thinking `I know Microsoft, so I must buy Microsoft 
software.' You know it`s true, and if you don`t then you need 
to get some specialists in market sentiment to teach you about it.
    If anything, Microsoft should be paying to have its competition 
gain ground in those sectors as well as in the commecial and 
consumer sectors, but we know that artificial market shared gained 
at the expense of Microsoft will only get back to Microsoft, so 
nothing will be gained in the latter two sectors.
    Here`s what I`d demand:
    Microsoft pays $2 billion into a general scholastic fund, plus 
2% of their gross income for the next 10 years.
    The funds are distributed to schools, in a fashion weighted 
towards those with the lowest technology budget (e.g. the poorest 
schools) and the lowest per capita family income.
    In addition, funds should be used to setup technology training 
centers in 10 urban areas nationwide with the highest unemployment 
rates and lowest per-capita incomes.
    The funds must be used for technologies other than Microsoft 
(Apple, Linux, etc.)
    Microsoft may not publicize the payment in any way (so as to 
gain goodwill from it).
    I believe this is a reasonable settlement considering the income 
that Microsoft has generated by gutting every sector of the software 
industry as it built its huge monopoly.
    Randall W. Dryburgh
    Dallas, TX



MTC-00003707

From: rafrost@bellsouth.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,senator_hatch@ 
hatch.senate.gov@inetg...
Date: 12/9/01 8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my concerns about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am particularly concerned about the potential effect 
on not-for-profit organizations (Section III(J)(2) and Section 
III(D)).
    In many cases, Microsoft main competitor is a product from a 
not-for-profit organization. If these organizations rights are 
diminished as a result of the proposed settlement, Microsoft will 
have been effectively rewarded for their past misdeeds. In my line 
of work, I use two Microsoft products (Internet Information Server 
and Exchange Server) and the competing not-for-profit products. If 
these not-for-profit products are removed from the market place, my 
choices as an end consumer are reduced, and Microsoft monopoly 
position is further enhanced. This hardly seems to be an equitable 
consequence for abusing one monopoly position.
    Regards,
    Bob Frost
    rafrost@bellsouth.net



MTC-00003708

From: Stephen Scherer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
FROM:
Stephen C.Scherer
325 Overdale Street
Morgantown, WV 26501
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Hello, I am a doctoral student nearing completion at West 
Virginia University. I`ve spent nearly four years working in 
instructional design and developing educational software for use 
over the Internet. I`ve had several successful projects, all with a 
minimum of external funding.
    I find many of the settlement issues with Microsoft Corporation 
`unsettling.' For those of us who follow technological 
issues and trends, the course that Microsoft Corporation has taken 
with respect to providing a viable solution to their anticompetitive 
behavior is a slap in the face. Their proposed settlement does 
little to weaken their monopolistic behavior, and in fact the 
settlement does appear to strengthen their position, especially 
their enroaching dominance over Internet protocols and 
`distributed

[[Page 24343]]

applications.' The Internet was not designed as a monopolistic 
stronghold by a company, but rather as a marketplace for products 
and ideas.
    The concern that I have as an educator with a significant 
background in software development is that educational innovation 
will become stifled by a company that does not give a damn about 
education; Microsoft Corporation sees the educational setting as a 
profit setting. And unfortunately, the last thing that our 
educational institutions have is money. I`ve seen the teachers, and 
I`ve watched the burnout. Introducing Microsoft software into 
educational environments will only make this situation worse. 
Microsoft Corporation behaves in a methodical way: it finds new 
environments and takes them over. Educational environments are too 
important to leave to the hands of a convicted monopolist of 
questionable values: http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-7978672.html
    Many of us are quite sickened by the behavior of Microsoft 
Corporation, and have been for years, but are at a loss at the steps 
to be taken to prevent this overgrown gorilla from destroying our 
educational environments through veiled profit seeking motives.
    I am a supporter of Open Source software; I believe that 
educational software should be developed under the Open Source 
model, because we are dealing with something that is so much more 
important than profits. We need to find software that works, and 
make it available to the widest available audiences; this is 
imperative, as we are in desperate need of educated individuals if 
we are to stave off very serious environmental and behavioral 
consequences that lie in our not too distant future. Education is a 
community effort, not a business effort, and providing Microsoft 
Corporation entry into our educational institutions only reminds me 
of the following phrase: `The road to Hell is paved with Good 
Intention.' I know what works, and I`m pretty sure I know what 
doesn`t work.
    Stephen C. Scherer
    West Virginia University



MTC-00003709

From: Brian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hello,
    After reading an article at `http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
pulpit/pulpit20011206.html' I felt compelled to write and 
share with you my views on the Microsoft Settlement. I have been a 
fan of Open Source software for a number of years now. It is 
important for you to be aware that Microsoft has been equally as 
predatory toward Open Source projects as to other businesses. Please 
do not overlook this. Please remove any language that could in any 
way, shape, or form allow Microsoft to harm Open Source projects. 
Microsoft should be required to give back to the community for its 
monopolistic practices. Microsoft should be required to re-license 
much of it`s software under the GNU General Public License 
(http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html).
    Please explicitly protect projects such as Wine (http://
www.winehq.org) in the final language for this settlement. Wine is 
an application for the GNU/Linux Operating System that allows for 
compatibility with Windows programs. Microsoft should in no way have 
the ability to attack projects such as Wine.
    These are my views and opinions. I would encourage you to 
research what I have mentioned and strongly consider this in the 
final language for this settlement. Do not forget, Microsoft is a 
monopoly and should be dealt with as such.
    Thank you for your time.
    Brian Horncastle



MTC-00003710

From: Jeremiah and Annika Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft penalty
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing today to express my heartfelt conviction that 
Microsoft is a monopoly that is suffocating innovation in the 
software industry. I also feel that Microsoft`s proposal to supply 
equipment to schools in our nation to bridge the `digital 
divide' in lieu of court-imposed fines is yet another attempt 
to get market share from Microsoft`s rivals. At MIT, where I work, 
there is a strict policy; no one may accept gifts from computer 
companies. This policy allows decisions on purchasing to be made 
without bias. This policy would be an excellent one for the nation`s 
schools as well, and would preclude a gift of Microsoft software to 
these schools. Instead Microsoft could arrange for an endowment for 
technology which would enable lower income schools to keep pace with 
their better supplied brethren. The monetary award could be given to 
different schools each year depending on their particular needs. 
They would apply for it, as if it were a grant, then use the money 
to purchase equipment best suited for their particular goals, from 
any company they choose. This would allow many companies to compete 
for the market, making for a freer marketplace where innovation and 
efficiency are rewarded and not size and brute force.
    Thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah Foster
    Somerville MA.



MTC-00003711

From: Jeffrey Thorns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:59 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not accept the proposal, as is. Doing so would only slap 
Microsoft on the wrist and encourage them to continue their current 
practices. Accepting the proposal would extend Microsoft`s monopoly 
into the Education market. (At least there is some competition from 
Apple in that market.)
    The proposal would immediately put all not-for-profit 
enterprises at an unrecoverable disadvantage_ie it would 
punish people who willingly and freely offered their work for free 
to the world. (I`m thinking of Open Source initiatives.)
    As Microsoft has grown larger and bolder, its 
`innovation' has slowed to a crawl. Allowing the status 
quo would further discourage them from the innovation that only 
comes from a free marketplace (ie without monopolies).
    Though I use Microsoft products at work every day, our firm is 
plagued by problems brought about as a result of management thinking 
that, since Microsoft has the marketplace to itself, they have no 
choice but to follow. Free competition would open the minds of 
America`s corporate heads, stimulating new businesses, and improving 
productivity with new and better products.
    Please do not allow Microsoft to get away with writing their own 
rules, as they have so often in the past, to everyone`s detriment.
    Thank you.
    Jeffrey Thorns



MTC-00003712

From: Douglas St.Clair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:01 pm
Subject: I am NOT in favor of the DOJ-Microsoft settlement
    The proposal to provide restitution by giving their software to 
schools will undermine the efforts of its competitors to the school 
market. However I would support their donation of hardware provided 
it offered a balanced mix of Intel, PowerPC, and Sun hardware as 
well as UNIX, Solaris, and Mac OS X. I don`t see any reason to 
enrich them by including any of their software. If there there are 
some favorable tax ramifications should they provide the equipment 
in this fashion these should be deined them so that they pay all the 
money due out to the public they have cheated.
    I think the proposed break up of applications and operating 
system is the only way to ensure that everybody gets to play on a 
level playing field as regards interfacing with their OS. The 
proposals as they stand would seem to make it impossible for 
freeware and shareware makers to get the information they need to 
`compete' for example.



MTC-00003713

From: Jeb Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 8:59 pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given

[[Page 24344]]

discretion as to who they will release information: namely, 
`viable businesses', with Microsoft being able to 
interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization.
    It is essential that the API information be made public. If it 
is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be *absolutely useless* to 
Free/Open Source software projects. We have formed a legal and 
social structure where we do not have the ability to keep pieces of 
our code private. This process must be respected by the settlement, 
as it forms the most serious competition for Microsoft, and is of 
large benefit to consumers. It is also essential that non-commercial 
groups of individuals be able to access API documentation, and have 
questions resolved by Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to 
allow Microsoft to have discretion on any aspect of this manner, as 
they can use that to further punish their most stringent competitors 
as they have done so many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Note: I did not write this, but it expresses my opinions well.
    Jeb
    Jeb Campbell
    C4 Solutions, Inc
    jebc@c4solutions.net
    T 865-546-6381
    M 865-368-5322



MTC-00003714

From: David Wright Escott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I would like to express my disagreements with the proposed 
microsoft settlement. I have two major concerns with the settlement, 
the first being the power that Microsoft is given to determine who 
should be given protections under the settlement and the second 
concerns the retributions that Microsoft will be making to the 
government itself.
    Section III(J)(C) of the proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
determine which companies would be allowed access to its API, 
Documentation and Communtications Protocols. Specificly the 
settlement states that Microsoft may deny this access to businesses 
that do not meet `reasonable, objective standards established 
by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.' Before accepting this settlement it is imperative 
that we understand which businesses Microsoft would consider 
unauthentic and unviable.
    At many times over the past year Microsoft executives have 
criticized the open source movement and more specificly the GPL. 
Microsofts position is that the GPL is a danger to intellectual 
property. Microsoft feels that by placing code under the GPL 
programs are making the code unavailable to the corporate world 
(itself included) and thereby dangerous to the viability of any 
company that models itself on the open source philosophy. From these 
statements it is clear that Microsoft would question the viability 
of companies like Redhat and non-profit foundations like Apache and 
Samba.
    However it is companies like these that are most likely to 
threaten Microsoft`s position. Currently Apache is the most popular 
webserver on the internet and GNU/Linux led by companies like 
Redhat, Suse, and Mandrake are pushing older proprietary UNIX 
distributions out of larger mainframes and servers. Furthermore 
projects like Samba are critical to the proliferation of these 
opensource companies as they provide facilities to connect the high-
end UNIX servers with low-end Windows based clients by providing the 
seemless file-sharing and printer-sharing provided by Microsoft or 
Netware based networks. If Microsoft were to determine that these 
companies, and organizations did not have authentic or viable 
business models, and were to restrict access to the Microsoft/
Windows Communications Protocols these projects could be stopped in 
their tracks leading to a collapse of the opensource movement as an 
effective competitor to proprietary Microsoft solutions.
    Another key point is that Netscape now bases its browser off of 
the Mozilla renderer. Mozilla is an opensource project that 
Microsoft could easily determine is not a viable competitor. We have 
already seen Microsoft restrict access to its msn.com portal for 
users of other non-internet explorer browsers, and users of Mozilla/
Netscape are unable to change their msn.com webmail passwords 
because of security concerns that Microsoft has with the browser. It 
seems clear to me that Microsoft would be eager to leverage its 
power to determine the viability of competitors business models to 
restrict Netscape/Mozilla`s access to the Windows API and Microsoft 
ActiveX controls for webbrowsers. These restriction could make these 
products even more unusable in the many Internet Explorer optimized 
sites on the web.
    Internet Explorer has a great advantage over Netscape on Windows 
because of its intergration into the OS. Much of the code and 
resources used by IE are already loaded into memory by the system so 
it takes little time for IE to load and become user-ready. Netscape 
on the other time must load itself from the hard drive increasing 
the time it takes for it to become available to the user. If 
Microsoft were to deny Netscape from access to Documentation on its 
API because of its Mozilla/GPL roots Netscape engineers would be 
unable to find ways to optimize the Mozilla code to load faster 
further increasing the time it takes for Mozilla to load. This 
simple restriction would inevitable drive Netscape off the Windows 
desktop and further increase the market share of IE as the browser 
of choice.
    This would give Microsoft Web Servers a distinct advantage over 
Apache and other competitors because of its ability to provide 
ActiveX controls that other browsers could not provide because 
Microsoft would not be required to provide its API to non-profit GPL 
based companies and organizations.
    I fail to see how the Government could have not forseen this as 
a possible outcome considering that much of the lawsuit was directed 
at the browser war between IE and Netscape Navigator.
    Finally I would like to point out that many other Microsoft 
competitors have decided to incorporate opensource software in its 
business model. IBM has begun to push Linux as the OS of choice on 
many of its servers as an alternative to IBM`s proprietary OS. Sun 
has decided that GNOME 2.0 will form the basis for its new Solaris 
graphical interface. Compaq has worked extensively to develop 64 bit 
Linux variations for Alpha`s and now Intel`s 64 bit chips, as well 
as ports of Linux to handheld devices currently running Windows CE. 
And finally Apple has introduced its new operating system based on a 
variation of FreeBSD UNIX. Although Microsoft could not easily 
suggest that these companies do not have authentic or viable 
business models but Microsoft could chip away at the non-profit 
organizations that provide the basic work needed to make these 
products usable. In this manner Microsoft could subvert these 
companies attempts to develop new Microsoft-independent products.
    This alone should be reason enough for concern but Microsoft has 
also managed to find a way to introduce its products even further 
into society, by offering computers equiped with Microsoft software 
to schools across the country. Microsoft would be allowed to 
determine the value of the software it would provide as part of the 
total evalution of the retribution that the company would pay. It 
seems illogical that a company should be allowed to determine the 
worth of its own payment. Does an elementary school student need the 
advanced graphing features of Excel? Do most people need all the 
features of Word, or Powerpoint? Is the ability of Internet Explorer 
to display animations or ActiveX handles truly worth the value to a 
school that Microsoft will determine they are? I believe that the 
answer to these questions are no. School systems should be allowed 
to take the money that

[[Page 24345]]

Microsoft would have given in hardware and software to instead 
purchase their own technology solutions in whatever manner they 
choose. Like all government contracts these solutions should be 
provided after open and fair competition between various 
competitors. To allow Microsoft to provide the solutions themselves 
is to simply provide Microsoft with an opportunity to infiltrate the 
school system and make users more dependent upon its software and 
services.
    Although I have not studied all of the settlement I cannot 
overlook these two areas as critical flaws in the Justice 
Departments settlement. I believe that the Government would be 
making a great mistake by accepting these terms and I would greatly 
encourage the Justice Department to not accept this agreement.
    David Escott
    Home: 4230 Allistair Rd.
    Winston-Salem NC 27104
    School: 1406 Harvard Yard Mail Center
    Cambridge MA 02138-7504



MTC-00003715

From: Gary W. Shawver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I write to express my concern about the proposed Microsoft anti-
trust settlement. As is currently stands, it is far too lenient. It 
does not punish Microsoft for past bad behavior, not prevent such 
future behavior. I am especially concerned that the three-man 
committee in charge of overseeing the settlement will not have 
adequate resources to oversee it. Microsoft should be made to 
finance the the operations of the committee from a substantial fine 
in the billions of dollars. One man who would make a fine member of 
this committee is Steven Satchell.
    The anti-trust settlement also does not address the concerns of 
non-profit software makers that offer some of the biggest 
competition to Microsoft products. In fact, it disenfranchised them. 
These organizations should be explicitly given the same protections 
as Microsoft`s commercial competitors.
    Microsoft should not be left free to crush the true sources of 
innovation in the computer industry, its commercial and non-
commercial competitors, nor should it escape punishment for the 
damage it has done.



MTC-00003716

From: Mike Ramstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:08 pm
Subject: The nine states are correct, don`t cave in.
    Dear People:
    Don`t give in, I know you already have, but you shouldn`t have. 
Running away because the administration has changed, the republicans 
are in, Gates is a cash cow for American foreign trade... just isn`t 
right. The message is that rich people do control the agenda through 
campaign contributions and the old boy network. We have to suffer 
from the mafia like tactics, the smothering hubris, the clearly 
monopolistic practices of giving away something for free to destroy 
innovative competition (actually folding the costs into escalation 
operationg system costs) and those of us who have been around a 
while don`t like it.
    If only Digital Research had said yes to IBM. Then Gates 
wouldn`t have made his first theft of CPM, we would have a more open 
source advocate in charge of the key pieces of our computer world 
the operating system and gui. The standards would have still been 
established, more people would be rewarded for creating products 
that interacted with those standards and each others products, and 
we would have had real capitalism rather than the terrible situation 
we now endure.
    Force Microsoft to unbundle. To disclose all interfaces and code 
of the operating system and gui. To price any add ons outside of the 
kernel and thus have to really compete. This will allow the kernel 
and gui to be completely debugged by peer review, making a much more 
secure operating environment, and security will be a big issue in 
the coming decade with the war on terror shifting into gear. Addons 
such as Outlook Express will cost money, and will probably be 
dropped in favor of products which don`t have such an abominable 
reputation as a security black hole.
    Keep in mind that IBM`s unbundling of hardware/software/
applications/operating system... led to the PC and the world of 
computing/networking as we now know it. We will be better off if 
Microsoft has to really compete.
    Thanks
    Mike
    CC:carl@ramstrom.com@inetgw



MTC-00003717

From: Bob Tajima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:09 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It has been brought to my attention by Robert X. Cringely`s web 
column (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html) that 
sections of the Microsoft settlement strongly discriminate against 
open source software. These sections include Section III(J)(2) and 
Section III(D). The open source software movement is a significant 
social experiment and should not be endangered by the Microsoft 
Corporation`s voracious and ruthless appetite for control of the 
software industry.
    Bob Tajima



MTC-00003718

From: tcgibian@home.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:11 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer who uses not only Microsoft products but also 
Linux I hope that my perspective may prove useful regarding the 
fitness of the proposed settlement of the DOJ`s case against 
Microsoft.
    First, as I understand it, MS has been found *guilty* of several 
criminal acts_using their position for monopolistic purposes. 
As a consumer, I have been injured by this since my choices have 
been limited illegally. All companies which have wished to compete 
with MS have been injured as well. Since MS is guilty, they should 
be punished, and the punishment should hurt. The gain which MS has 
obtained illegally should be allowed to competitors and consumers 
since they are the injured parties.
    What I have read of the settlement agreement has disappointed 
me. I can only consider that the DOJ has capitulated on their 
responsibilities, perhaps unknowingly. The punishment which faces 
Microsoft is not in proportion to the damage which they have done, 
it is mostly temporary, and much of it can be avoided by MS without 
much trouble.
    I particularly object to section III(J)(2) from the perspective 
of the many useful not-for-profit businesses who are in the software 
production business. This section states that MS need not describe 
nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols to any 
company unless it `...(c) meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by *Microsoft* for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its *business*, ...'. The proposed settlement 
only protects the competitive rights of `companies in 
commerce_organizations in business for profit' and 
neglects any businesses which compete with MS but do not seek a 
profit. The definition of a `business' is left to 
Microsoft. This is like hiring wolves to guard sheep. I fear they 
will exclude any business they can from the benefits of the 
settlement, for example, Samba and Apache, to name just two. Section 
III(D) goes further in allowing MS to exclude these non-commercial 
concerns.
    Part of Microsoft`s defense was that times and business have 
changed since the time a century ago when the laws were written 
which MS was found guilty of breaking. I suggest that they are more 
right than they know. I suggest that Microsoft`s unlawful practices 
have hurt all consumers and competitors. This latter group is best 
defined in the modern day as a company which offers a competitive 
product, and not merely one which hopes to make a profit from it. 
The existing settlement will further penalize this not-for-profit 
segment of Microsoft`s competitors, and for that reason I believe it 
is faulty.
    I fear that if the settlement is adopted as written, before too 
long I as a consumer will be faced with fewer options in the 
marketplace. I will only be able to buy inadequate software from a 
company which has proven itself unwilling to compete through 
production of higher quality products, but prefers to win market 
share by using illegal practices to slaughter the competition.
    I feel proud to be from a state which has found fault with the 
settlement as proposed. I am very disappointed that the DOJ has 
chosen to promote a settlement agreement which would allow Microsoft 
to continue so easily its anti-competitive practices against one 
segment of the industry from which it obviously feels some pressure. 
It is not too late to rectify this omission.
    Terence C. Gibian
    Laguna Beach, CA
    tcgibian@home.com



MTC-00003719

From: Jeffery D. Collins

[[Page 24346]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The manner in which APIs would be revealed are limiting to 
Microsoft`s main competitor: Free and Open Source Software 
(`Free' defined as `without restriction' not 
`free of cost').
    This software is created largely by individuals in informal and 
generally noncommercial cooperation. This is a very significant 
movement, and provides great potential benefits for American 
consumers. I think that makes such Free and Open Source Software 
*the* essential beneficiary of the ruling against Microsoft. This 
case was not a question of whether businesses were harmed by the 
monopoly, but rather consumers. It is essential that this pro-
consumer movement be helped by the settlement. Instead they 
speficially discriminated against by the settlement.
    Under provisions to release the API of Microsoft products, 
Microsoft is given discretion as to who they will release 
information: namely, `viable businesses', with Microsoft 
being able to interpret that as they wish.
    I am personally involved in many projects that have the 
potential to benefit consumers, but are not businesses of any sort, 
rather a conglomeration of individual developers. I would expect 
that these groups will be excluded under this settlement.
    Instead of this model, APIs should be made fully public. 
Individuals, in some manner, should be able to ask questions of 
Microsoft regarding these APIs, and have them answered publically. 
If it seems too difficult to allow any individual to ask such a 
question, an electronic petition process could be used instead, as 
long as a group of individuals can have the same weight as a 
commercial organization. It is essential that the API information be 
made public. If it is hindered by any sort of NDA it will be 
*absolutely useless* to Free/Open Source software projects. We have 
formed a legal and social structure where we do not have the ability 
to keep pieces of our code private. This process must be respected 
by the settlement, as it forms the most serious competition for 
Microsoft, and is of large benefit to consumers.
    It is also essential that non-commercial groups of individuals 
be able to access API documentation, and have questions resolved by 
Microsoft. In general, it is dangerous to allow Microsoft to have 
discretion on any aspect of this manner, as they can use that to 
further punish their most stringent competitors as they have done so 
many times in the past.
    It is also dangerous to allow them discretion on security 
issues. While it is acceptable that they be allowed a short, private 
period to resolve security issues before making them public, all 
aspects of their systems must be made public. It is all too easy to 
add security aspects to nearly any portion of a system. It is even 
potentially a good thing that they add security at many parts of 
their system. However, they should not need to be private about 
their security measures to ensure the effectiveness of that 
security. The Free/Open Source communities have created large 
amounts of software that is secure while being open. Microsoft 
should do the same. This process is completely possible, and has 
been demonstrated over and over for as long as computer security has 
existed.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffery D. Collins, Ph.D.
    CC:jcollins@boulder.net@inetgw



MTC-00003720

From: Julius Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement CC: 
jos@ccrma.stanford.edu@inetgw
    To whom it may concern:
    After reading Robert Cringely`s Dec. 6 column, http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html I was moved to write 
to express strong disagreement with the notion that Microsoft APIs 
need only be disclosed to commercial entities. To enable 
competition, Microsoft must publish all of its system APIs freely, 
preferably on the World Wide Web. Otherwise, the most innovative 
force in software (the open-source community) will be locked out.
    Thanks for your consideration,
    Julius Smith, Ph.D/E.E. 
    Associate Professor
    CCRMA, Stanford University



MTC-00003721

From: Craig T. Snydal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to voice my dismay at the proposed Final Judgment 
in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case. In particular, I believe that open 
source projects such as Apache, Perl and Linux be better looked 
after in the language of the settlement. We open source developers 
should be allowed to compete with Microsoft just as Compaq and 
Netscape are being allowed to.
    Thank you,
    Craig Snydal



MTC-00003722

From: Joe Klimek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, like many of the people I have talked with, think Microsoft 
is getting of too easy_perhaps even completely `off the 
hook.' I have always thought the role of government is to look 
into the interest of the people. Am I wrong about this?
    About two months ago, I decided to stop using Microsoft Outlook 
because so many of the PC viruses are really Outlook viruses. Thanks 
to Microsoft`s clout, the media does mention this point. In any 
case, I started using another e-mail package and then un installed 
Outlook. Much to my surprise, the program reinstalled itself 
automatically when I restarted my computer. In other words, I could 
not un install the program and therefore remain susceptible to these 
viruses. I, and everyone else, knows that Windows does not need to 
have Outlook installed in order to properly function. Then, what is 
the reason I cannot un-install Outlook. I think the trial answered 
this question. I cannot force Microsoft to behave properly. But the 
DOJ can. Now, why is it, exactly, that you aren`t working for the 
public`s interest? Could it be that big business is running our 
government. I didn`t always think this was true. I do now. In fact, 
I am sure of it._
    joe klimek



MTC-00003723

From: Admin7
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft Corporation alone. I use their products 
as do many of my coworkers and friends and we are tired of the 
government wasting our tax money trying to punish a company that has 
kept our economy strong. Thank you.
    Hugh Jazz (Native American taxpayer)



MTC-00003724

From: Benjamin Davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I fear that the US DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft has a huge 
deficency in reguard to not for profit entities. If the goal in this 
entire court proceedings is to aid consumers then I fail to see why 
safeguards should only be applied to commercial situations. That 
sounds more like a quest to aid industry and ecconomy. For example, 
if a university or scientific foundation were striving towards a 
certain advance that required them to work with existing software 
(work with meaning design for or change of) they could be excluded 
access from Microsoft code when rival, commerical, entities could 
not. Microsoft was found guilty. While this does not mean they 
cannot be trusted it means that they should be prevented from 
obvious avenues of similar actions. Under the current settlement it 
would be possible to exclude, in a similar fashion as they exclude 
Netscape, all not for profit entities. Please take note of this and 
amend the settlement agreement.
    Sincerly,
    Benjamin Davies
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00003725

From: andrewa@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a computer software developer, I am reading over this 
proposed settlement as carefully as I can, and can see places where 
the language is either a little ambiguous, or does not provide for 
certain possibilities. I will go through this proposed settlement, 
and point out changes that I see could stand to be made:
    The first part under section III `Prohibited 
Conduct' seems to not make any provisions for a company to 
have two product lines: Computers with the Microsoft Windows 
product, and computers with another third-party operating system 
(such as Linux, BSD, or Be, Inc`s BeOS, etc). Provisions are made to 
allow a company to have both, with

[[Page 24347]]

bootloaders or such to allow the user to select the OS, but nothing 
seems to prevent Microsoft from disallowing companies to sell 
machines with only a third-party operating system on it, if they 
sell machines with Microsoft Windows as well. What language does 
exist in this proposed agreement, is vague, and seems fraught with 
possible loopholes.
    Part E of Section III deals with interoperability being allowed. 
It seems to imply that APIs should be allowed, but it only seems to 
apply toward communication formats, and nothing is said about what 
Microsoft may charge potential users of these formats to obtain 
them. Nothing is also said of what restrictions MS may place on 
users of the formats. Thus, MS could sell the formats for a paltry 
sum of $10,000_and only allow them to use them if the sell 
their own product for a certain amount. Free Software (ie, GPL`d 
Software_see www.gnu.org), which relies on mostly community 
effort, would never be able to afford these API definitions, and 
furthermore would not be able to use them, since Free Software, 
while not necessarily free in the monetary sense, also relies on 
openness of code. Microsoft could simply say that in order to use 
the APIs, you can`t distribute source, thus cutting off access for 
Free Software developers, and continuing their monopoly in the face 
of their competition. Lastly, this section deals only with 
communications formats_what of the other `real' 
formats, such as file formats for documents (Word .DOC formats), 
spreadsheets (Excel formats), etc? These are the lynchpin formats. 
Having these formats be open and freely available would allow the 
development of competing office productivity software by 
competitors, who could assure users of MS Office that they can 
easily load and use the millions of MS Office files they have 
already created. This is where the real competition needs to be.
    I do not see this particular settlement to be a good thing. 
Microsoft is laughing at the government, at the public, at everyone. 
They have been judged an illegal monopoly, something that has harmed 
consumers! You and I! Yet, they have not had to pay 
anything_and are looking like they will be able to continue 
with their illegal monopoly. It is with a heavy heart that I see 
this_it seems like the rights of a corporation mean more than 
my rights as a citizen of this country.
    Let me ask you something else: Remember all of these email 
viruses that go around? Think about them for a minute. How much lost 
time is spent on these things.
    Does it occur to you that they are allowed to propogate because 
of insufficiencies in Microsoft Software? Namely, Microsoft Outlook, 
and IIS? Why have they not had to update their software?
    What if people could have a viable alternative, in the form of 
Free Software, GPL`d Linux, or even other third party OS`s?
    Most people don`t want this_because they know they will 
have problems getting their documents to load, etc_because 
they are in locked down proprietary Microsoft file formats_and 
if they switch to another OS, they won`t be able to do a conversion, 
plus, anything they create won`t be able to be read by the people 
and companies they work with, because everybody else is using MS 
software. It is a vicious circle, and oroborus eating its 
tail_that can`t be broken because the formats are unavailable 
to the people who need them most: Developers of Free Software.
    Don`t let this go by this way_change the language_I 
implore you, as I am sure many, many others haveas well (in much 
more elegant manners, too, I imagine)! I don`t want my children 
living in a Microsoft dominated culture_I am sure you don`t 
want that either.
    The time is now_it must start now. If we wait_it 
will be too late. Microsoft is rapidly moving to a different revenue 
model_something where you won`t buy your OS, but will instead 
lease it_perhaps even to the hour_pay $3.95 now, or your 
document goes `Bye-Bye'! They could wield this like a 
hammer to hold consumers (nee, citizens!) and other companies 
hostage to thier wills and whims.
    Please, change this now_before it is too late!
    Sincerly,
    A concerned citizen and software developer:
    Andrew L. Ayers
    2305 East Quail Avenue
    Phoenix, Arizona 85024



MTC-00003726

From: Curt Pederson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern with the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I am a Software Engineer who has been in the industry since 
1990. Most of my career has been spent developing applications on 
the Windows platform. As a developer, I`ve experienced the pains of 
dealing with Microsoft bullying not only developers, but end users. 
My experiences have caused me to change my preferred development 
language, platform and tools to a point that excludes anything 
Microsoft. The environment I`ve moved to is Linux, Java and open 
source tools.
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft exposes the open source 
community to the continuing rampage of Microsoft by not protecting 
the community in the same way corporations are protected. Open 
source is argueably the biggest threat to Microsoft. The largest 
threat is Linux.
    Robert Cringely`s site has an excellent explanation of this 
concern. Here is the section of his page (found here http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html.) `Well, 
Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning this time 
on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better deal, but 
literally to disenfranchise many of the people and organizations who 
feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s actions. If this deal 
goes through as it is written, Microsoft will emerge from the case 
not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement specifically protect companies in 
commerce_organizations in business for profit. On the surface, 
that makes sense because Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic 
activities against `competing' commercial software 
vendors like Netscape, and other commercial vendors_computer 
vendors like Compaq, for example. The Department of Justice is used 
to working in this kind of economic world, and has done a fair job 
of crafting a remedy that will rein in Microsoft without causing 
undue harm to the rest of the commercial portion of the industry. 
But Microsoft`s greatest single threat on the operating system front 
comes from Linux_a non-commercial product_and it faces a 
growing threat on the applications front from Open Source and 
freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products. Section III(D) takes this 
disturbing trend even further. It deals with disclosure of 
information regarding the APIs for incorporating non-Microsoft 
`middleware.' In this section, Microsoft discloses to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Independent Hardware Vendors 
(IHVs), Internet Access Providers (IAPs), Internet Content Providers 
(ICPs), and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) the information 
needed to inter-operate with Windows at this level. Yet, when we 
look in the footnotes at the legal definitions for these outfits, we 
find the definitions specify commercial concerns only. But wait, 
there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut out, too. 
NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology_even the Department of 
Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan 
is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. `I 
realize that is most of the site, however, my writing ability 
doesn`t compare to Robert`s.
    Thank you for letting me voice my opinion.

[[Page 24348]]

    Curt Pederson
    Madison WI



MTC-00003727

From: Jeremiah G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I am giving my view on the Microsoft 
Settlement case.
    I believe that the settlement is unfair to the United States and 
is in favor of Microsoft. The courts should not rule to settle, but 
instead keep prosecuting until a settlement is reached where 
Microsoft is broken up or somehow made to pay for being guilty.
    For example, putting their (Micorosoft) software in school 
computers is not payment, it is a good thing for the company as more 
young kids will learn and therefore prefer MS products.
    Also, the settlement protects companies in commerce_ 
organizations in business for profit. But non-profit companies need 
to be protected too. For example, Apache has a very large market 
share of servers and it is non-profit.
    Finally, I would like to recommend Steve Satchell for one of the 
positions on the committee that will oversee Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremiah J. Griswold
    Hudson, MA 01749



MTC-00003728

From: Kevin J. Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a complete mistake. Under the current 
version, it completely gives Microsoft a huge advantage over the 
single entity that microsoft has itself publicly stated that it 
deems as its greatest threat.
    This entity is GNU/linux and the rest of the opensource 
community such as open source projects like Samba and Apache. also, 
when it comes to the monetary portion of the settlement, it is 
hardly reasonable to allow them to include their own products as 
part of the monetary settlement. It costs them nothing to give their 
software away and deduct the retail cost of it away from the 
ballance. If the Government wants to make Microsoft help out poor 
schools, make them provide it all in hardware and allow the schools 
to decide what kind of hardware and what software to place on top of 
it.
    my address:
    kevin j. anderson
    5409 alberta rd
    chesterfield virginia 23832



MTC-00003729

From: counterstrike sucks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello my name is Andres Rivero, and I`m from the state of 
California. I am writing to say that I believe Microsoft as a 
company has done so much for the USA and the world, that they 
deserve much more graditude than what they are receiving. People are 
quick to point out all the small faults they have, but delay to 
their great advancements in helping people connect, work, have fun.
    After being able to work out an agreement with the DoJ. 
Microsoft was going to offer computers for schools, and then other 
companies quickly moved in to halt their offering. Why must 
everything MS do be something with a hidden cause?
    The United States of America was built upon one of the ideas 
that a person should be and individual and try to advance. Not be 
stuck in a monotonous group. Microsoft is a company, that is 
striving to advance, innovate. Sure, just like people, companies 
make mistakes. But all mistakes are learned upon and have and effect 
on our future choices. Case in point, I hope that Microsoft has 
learned from things that they have fumbled upon in the past, and 
continues to provide great services to the people of the USA and the 
world.
    Thank You,
    Andres Rivero
    Pasadena, CA



MTC-00003731

From: fkrogh@mathalacarte.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to add my name to those who are extremely disappointed 
in the settlement agreement that has been made with Microsoft. It 
seems to me that there has no punishment at all for acts that 
Microsoft has been found guilty of, and have damaged a good many 
companies, and more importantly computer users at large. For a 
monopoly has the effect of limiting choice. In the case of Microsoft 
this has also had the effect of making the security of our national 
computing infrastructure much less than it might be.
    There are many things that might have been done to address the 
damages done by Microsoft, but two come to mind:
    1. They have been found guilty and have profited greatly from 
their misdeeds. So about a a fine that reflects the extent of their 
profits from this. I`m sure the government can use the money, and 
some clear signal should be sent that misdeeds are punished.
    2. The so called api`s may be thought of by Microsoft as 
valuable intellectual property. But they are no such thing. They are 
valuable only because of Microsoft`s monopoly position. The same is 
true of the file formats that are used. As a monopoly that is to be 
punished for monopoly behavior Microsoft should be required to make 
these interfaces and file formats public for all current products 
and all future products for at least 5 years. A hefty fine should be 
automatic if any Microsoft product is found to use an interface of 
file format that has not been publicly documented. Note that we do 
not believe that Microsoft source code falls in the same category. 
It is valuable because of the job it does, and would be valuable 
even for a company that was not in a monopoly position.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Fred T. Krogh
    fkrogh@mathalacarte.com



MTC-00003732

From: John Robertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    In my opinion the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft is little more than a slap on the wrist, and a 
disservice to all of us who work in the computer industry. I believe 
that the settlement should include nothing short of:
    1) For a period of 5 years, make available by posting on the 
Internet current and complete documentation on:
    a) All file formats for all Microsoft products. No exclusions 
for any reason (like DMCA, trade secret, patent or copyright law).
    b) All Microsoft API calls.
    c) All proprietary Microsoft network protocols, or Microsoft 
specific extensions to standard network protocols.
    2) For a period of 7 years, require that Microsoft offer a 
version of their `Office' product for Linux for the same 
price as the Windows version. Require that the Linux version have 
the same, up to date feature set as the Windows version.
    3) For a period of 5 years, supply a $250,000/year grant to the 
Free Software Foundation for the purpose of verifying that Microsoft 
stays in compliance with the agreement. Charge Microsoft $1,000,000 
per violation.
    Please keep in mind that Microsoft has $30,000,000,000 largely 
because they have been abusing their monopoly power. They have done 
this even after agreeing not to do so in a previous anti-trust case. 
It would be imprudent to assume Microsoft has any ethics. JDR
    John D. Robertson, Computer / Engineering Consultant
    Robertson & Robertson Consultants, Inc.
    3637 West Georgia Rd.
    Pelzer, SC 29669
    Phone: (864) 243-2436
    Fax: (864) 243-3023
    Email: john@rrci.com
    WWW: http://www.rrci.com



MTC-00003733

From: Norbert Cartagena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:22pm
Subject: Rewards?
    To who it may concern;
    Since when is the United States in the habit of rewarding 
Monopolists by allowing them to extend their sphere of influence? 
Microsoft offers to settle by giving under powered computers to 
schools, loaded with their over-priced software. In this case, even 
valuing the software at $.01 is over-priced. This is tantamount to 
letting a criminal value the worth of his own dollar in a cash 
settlement (`Yes, this dollar should be valued in 1951 
standards...'). Furthermore, what has been offered is the 
equivalent of having told a Gasoline monopolist that their 
punishment is to put MORE gas stations up in neighborhoods where 
they don`t hold a monopoly. In this case, however, when you put 
their gasoline in your car you could put no other products other 
than theirs_gas, oil, transmission fluid, etc._or those 
approved by them. I believe the reasoning behind your decision is 
based on your lack of knowledge

[[Page 24349]]

of the REAL issue at hand. Microsoft has never been a monopoly 
because of their Internet browser. So what if they`ve endowed their 
Operating System (OS) with web browsing capabilities? Unix has had 
the same abilities for over 30 years! The problem is their licensing 
agreements with computer manufacturers, which state that any company 
that distributes Windows with their computers is NOT ALLOWED to 
display support for ANY other OS. How do you justify one company 
controlling the policies of another separate and private entity? 
Whatever happened to an open economic system?
    If you truly want to punish them for their monopolistic 
practices, you will do the following:
    1) Agree to the Red Hat proposition which would force Microsoft 
to buy 1,000,000 computers instead of 200,000. Red Hat has agreed to 
install their industry standard Operating System, Linux, for free on 
all 1,000,000 computers, complete with all source code (something 
which you are now battling Microsoft to open up). If you feel 
uncomfortable with one company installing their own operating system 
on all systems, then you can also enlist the help of various other 
Linux companies, such as SuSE A.G., MandrakeSoft, TurboLinux, 
eSmith, as well as Non corporate entities, such as the Debian Linux 
Project and the Free Software Foundation. All with full source code, 
all with open standards, all who work with the air of cooperation in 
their business dealings. This would, of course, include the support 
of Linux`s creator, Linux Torvalds, of Transmeta, Inc.
    2) Force them to open up their File Format standards and 
specifications (this is the extension on your documents, such as 
.doc for a MS Word Document and .xls for an Excel style sheet). This 
would force the company`s products to compete in an equal playing 
field with other office suites, such as Corel`s WordPerfect and 
Sun`s StarOffice, as well as non corporate entities such as the Open 
Office project and AbiSource.
    3) Force the company to recant all licensing stipulations which 
call for their products to have a place of exclusivity on any other 
company`s distributed system. Directly, DO NOT allow them to 
`own' the boot sector of any machine in which their 
Operating system is installed. This would allow Hardware companies 
such as Dell and Compaq to pre install other Operating systems, such 
as Linux and BeOS (as well as any new operating system which might 
appear) and give them equal prominence in a system, allowing the end 
consumer to make the decision, thereby allowing a truly open and 
free market to balance itself out.
    Thank you for your time and may God grant you the wisdom to do 
the right thing.
    Sincerely,
    Norbert Omar Cartagena
    Voter



MTC-00003734

From: Jason Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to put forward my views concerning the proposed 
DOJ/MS settlement.
    Firstly, the settlement lacks sufficient provisions for 
protecting `not for profit' organisations and groups. 
This will hurt non commercial groups such as the Free Software 
Foundation amongst others.
    Also, the proposed settlement will do little if nothing to curb 
the practices of Microsoft. Already Microsoft has used its 
monopolistic power in the PC industry to fund its entrance into the 
Video Game industry with the XBox console. Now Microsoft is poised 
to enter the homes of Americans. Also, with the .Net services 
upcoming, Microsoft is well on its way to having a regular billing 
relationship with its customers, as well as mongering all their 
personal data with PASSPORT. Please invest more time into 
researching and interviews with industry pundits. Do not loose hope!
    I pray that you will stand by your cause that started this!
    Sincerely,
    Jason Woodward
    424 Sandymead Rd
    Matthews, NC 28105
    (704) 849-2387



MTC-00003735

From: Robert Redelmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    Persuant to the Tunney Act, I would like to make the following 
comments on the proposed Final Judgement in `US et al v. 
Microsoft':
    Section III(J)2 permits Microsoft to restrict the release of 
needed information to businesses that meet Microsoft`s definition of 
viability. Section III(D) repeats this for specific OEMs, ISVs, 
IHVs, IAPs and ICPs. These limits have the following defects:
    1) It fails to allow for start-up businesses that have yet to 
show viability.
    2) It fails to allow for businesses which have different 
business models than Microsoft. One such model is businesses which 
release source code but sell services.
    3) It fails to allow for business and individuals who wish to 
add functionality for internal use.
    To avoid possible obstruction by the defendant or a definitional 
nightmare, I propose that all restrictions on the recipients of 
Microsoft information be removed. Only by so doing can the damage 
caused by an adjudged monopoly in the operating systems market be 
minimized.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Redelmeier
    13011 Mossy Ridge Cove
    HOUSTON Texas 77041
    (281) 544 6209 redelm@ev1.net



MTC-00003736

From: Michael Holve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I`d like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion on the 
Microsoft settlement issue while I have the chance.
    I, like many others feel that Microsoft should definitely NOT be 
given the chance to simply hand out hardware and/or software to 
settle, especially to schools. This is exactly what they want and it 
would be a walk in the park for them_and do absolutely nothing 
to stave off their aggressive, anti-competitive practices in the 
industry.
    Their `software donation' would cost them very 
little in the big picture since it`s theirs to begin with, and would 
further gain Microsoft ground in the educational market, where 
they`ve been held off by Apple. So not only would they get off easy, 
but they have another opportunity to get their foot in the door 
where previously they could not. They would in effect, squash yet 
another competitor in their primary market if allowed to do this. 
Same goes for the hardware_it would be a tax write off for 
them. Microsoft has way too much money and power in this industry 
that such a `settlement' would mean nothing to them. 
They spit in the face of justice, if this were allowed to pass.
    In my opinion, Microsoft needs to be dealt with in the strictest 
of manners or they will simply continue their methods. While I don`t 
necessarily feel that the government should get involved in carving 
up companies, monopolies DO need to be dealt with, especially one as 
powerful as Microsoft has become. I don`t think I need to remind you 
that Microsoft software runs 90% of the computers on the PLANET. 
Hello? Microsoft, since the beginning of this case has tried to 
`look good' in the eye of the public with several 
similar donations and `good will efforts.' Those of us 
that are in the industry clearly see through this, as I hope 
everyone else involved in this case does, but I fear that may not be 
the case.
    I have been involved in this industry for twenty years and am 
pretty much at the peak of my career. For almost the last decade, I 
have been strictly anti-Microsoft, neither recommending their 
software nor using it in a professional capacity. I won`t turn this 
into a rant, but suffice it to say that I will not be a party to 
their strong-arm tactics.
    Take a little peak at Microsoft`s current `licensing 
structure' for their latest software such as `Office 
X' for the Macintosh, or the `Windows XP' 
operating system for Intel-based computers. That this can be allowed 
to continue is a true crime. It amounts to nothing short of pure 
extortion.
    Here`s a brief example. Microsoft has all but killed ANY 
competitors in the `office suite' market, leaving just 
`Microsoft Office' as the sole choice. This software 
retails, on average_close to $500. Upgrades which come 
frequently enough to milk customers dry, and also at $150 or more. 
The only people that can afford this are businesses. For the average 
home consumer, there are few options save for watered down leftovers 
after Microsoft blitzkrieged the landscape of viable alternatives.
    Look at the whole `Microsoft vs. Linux' debacle, 
also. They`ve basically targeted Linux for destruction, but 
alas_it`s out of their reach. For now...
    I urge you, nay_I BEG YOU_to do the right thing 
here. Do not let Microsoft get away with these shenanigans. Examine, 
re-examine_and examine yet again the clear evidence before you 
of cut-throat, monopolistic and downright dirty business

[[Page 24350]]

practices of this giant mega-corporation. You are the only few that 
can approach them and bring about this change. Should you look the 
other way and allow this travesty to continue, I fear for the 
computer industry and the future of personal and business computers 
everywhere. American business as well as that abroad rely heavily on 
computers to bring about economic growth to the world economies and 
the American GNP. Do we really want to leave that in the hands of 
this clearly arrogant corporation that defies the DOJ and it`s 
critics alike with these paltry attempts at appeasement?
    Bill Gates and Microsoft Corporation did not get where they are 
today because of good products and practices. Do not take Gates 
lightly_he is a shrewd businessman, if nothing else_and 
I wager, has a good team behind him. They will worm their way 
through loopholes if allowed the slightest chance.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope that my opinion has reached 
someone, anyone_that cares to listen. Feel free to contact me 
if you should like any further discussion...



MTC-00003737

From: Paul A. Orphanos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    December 9, 2001
    As a United States Citizen, I am exercising my right under the 
Tunney Act to comment on the proposed DoJ vs. Microsoft settlement.
    I am a user of an operating system other than Windows for over 
10 years for science and engineering applications and have first 
hand experience as to the barriers Microsoft places on business that 
HAVE NOT been addressed by the proposed settlement.
    The bigest barrier to competition is the fact that Microsoft is 
the standard for many applications commonly used in business (word 
processing, spreadsheets, databases, etc.). They abuse this standard 
by making the data format used by these programs proprietary, and 
tying it to other Microsoft products (databases, operating systems, 
etc.).
    I have lost ownership of my intellectual property because it is 
only through the use of Microsoft products that I can access my 
data.
    Microsft further abuses their position by tying access to my 
data to the Windows platform since their programs only run on 
Windows (typically).
    It is common sense that a company would be more profitable by 
writing their software to work on as many operating systems as 
opssible.
    Microsoft, however, has an inherent conflict of interest due to 
the fact that they want to maximize their overall sales by ensuring 
that full functionality is only available on Windows.
    Therefore, no end-user or company is in any position to even 
CONSIDER the use of a competing application suites (commercial or 
non-profit/opensource) or competing operating system. Microsoft`s 
monopoly is unbreakable unless the file formats for their de-facto 
standard applications are published and freely available.
    Microsoft has benefited from competition in the Personal Digital 
Assistant market competing with Palm Inc., financial management 
software (vs. Quicken) and now video game consoles with its Xbox 
(vs. Playstation, Gamecube, etc.). These are legitimately superior 
products, although MS Money and the PocketPC are completely tied to 
Windows.
    By mandating that Microsoft publicize the formats for their 
data, not only will better applications result (for example, I could 
use the word processor with the best user interface), consumers will 
be able to truly use whatever application and operating system best 
suits the users need, as opposed to being forced to use Microsoft`s 
offerings because business communications requires it. Currently, 
this has cost my employer by having to purchase an extra computer on 
which to utilize these tools.
    As a consumer (and/or business), I should be able to choose the 
word processor, spreadsheet, etc. that I want to use without 
sacrificing functionality and compatibility with Microsoft`s 
`standard' products.
    Sincerely,
    Paul A. Orphanos
    Paul A. Orphanos
    mailto:paul@orphanos.ipmail.att.net



MTC-00003738

From: Aaron Estrada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    All wording in the Microsoft Settlement that could threaten free 
and open source software must be eliminated from the document.
    Since when has it become illegal to give something away? If 
Microsoft cannot compete with free software, maybe their software 
isn`t worth buying. Isn`t that the whole idea of a free market?
    Microsoft is talking out both sides of their mouth when they 
talk about `open markets' Don`t HELP them with their 
agenda!
    I urge all the members of the DOJ involved in this case to 
thoroughly familiarize themselves with the topics of computer 
software, Internet protocols and the software business. Please be 
very thoughtful in your decision and don`t let Microsoft `put 
one over on you'
    respectfully,
    Aaron Estrada



MTC-00003739

From: Craig Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:41pm
Subject: Support for Red Hat proposal
    After reading an online article discussing the Microsoft 
proposal, I would like to voice my support in the proposal offered 
by the software comany, Red Hat.
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/
press_usschools.html
    It doesn`t really seem like punishment to force Microsoft to 
furnish software to schools. These children will have only the 
opportunity to learn microsoft programs which will further exetend 
Microsoft`s future monopoly.
    As CEO of Starpoint Communications, Inc., an full service ISP in 
SW Minnesota, we rely on the diverse technical skills of our staff. 
These skill are not one sided Microsoft applications. They include 
other operating systems such as MacIntosh and Unix-like operating 
systems.
    I can vouch for the fact that open source operating systems can 
provide a rich and functional computing environment at a fraction of 
the cost of Microsoft. Personally I use Microsoft products in a very 
limited capacity, yet enjoy all the comforts of a fully integrated 
desktop computer environment using the X-windows system. If you are 
not familiar with this or other open source products, which cost 
nothing, I invite you to do the research.
    I urge you to consider Red Hat`s proposal and let Microsoft pay 
for its crime.
    Craig Holland
    CEO Starpoint Communications
    201 W Marshall
    Marshall MN 56258
    (507) 532-9641



MTC-00003740

From: arm3@infi.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    The internet is too important to have it controlled by one 
company or one person. The proposed settlement by John Ashcroft and 
the DOJ will not slow Microsoft from their ultimate goal, control of 
the internet and all commerce that uses the internet. This has been 
known for years, but has not been addressed.
    To gain any control over the internet, they must control the 
servers.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to keep them from 
leveraging their monopoly into the server market. If they control 
the servers, they can force all competing browsers and OS`s off the 
internet by changing protocols. The settlement only appears to stop 
them from excluding competitors, but actually gives them permission 
to exclude them. Microsoft will be allowed to determine who is a 
`viable business' and who is not. Judging from their 
past behavior, I doubt that any potential competitor will pass the 
viability test. This give too much power to Microsoft. It gives them 
life or death to any business or technology they want to destroy.
    I doubt that Apache, their main competitor in the server market 
will be deemed worthy by Microsoft. All they will have to do is 
change a protocol and refuse to allow Apache servers to use it. 
Apache is free and opensource, and not controlled by any one person 
or company like Microsoft or IBM. They could say that Apache, or any 
company using Apache is not viable, and there is nothing anyone can 
do about it.
    I thought if you are found guilty of a crime, you got punished. 
After reading the settlement, it appears they are being handed the 
keys to the internet. Please don`t reward crime by allowing the 
settlement endorsed by DOJ and Ashcroft, the internet is too 
important to be turned over to Microsoft.
    Al Marzian
    1397 Hartland woods Way
    Lexington Ky 40515
    arm3@infi.net.

[[Page 24351]]



MTC-00003741

From: John MacLeod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:52pm
Subject: Proposed Settlement of Microsoft Antitrust Suit
    To Department of Justice:
    I am a professional computer consultant with a Master of Science 
degree in Computer Science and 16 years in the computer industry.
    I share the opinion of many computer industry professionals that 
the proposed settlement is not harsh enough, and leaves Microsoft 
quite free to repeat its past history of abuse of the market. Since 
emerging as the market leader in the PC operating system industry in 
the mid 1980`s, Microsoft has continuously abused its monopolist 
position by hiding the core hooks of its Windows platform from its 
competitors large and small.
    As a result, the PC software consumer has been forced to accept 
a reduced number of alternatives not only in the OS, but also in 
applications and utilities. The Windows platform is notoriously less 
reliable, bloated and expensive than alternative OS platforms such 
as Unix or Linux.
    It is all too clear that many great products have been 
terminated pre-maturely by Microsoft`s monopolistic lockout of the 
OS.
    I would ask that the Department of Justice reconsider the need 
for punitive damages more commensurate with the harm the Microsoft 
monopoly has done to the industry and, by extension, to the 
country`s economy.
    Respectfully,
    John H. MacLeod, President
    John MacLeod Consulting, Inc.
    108 86 Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11209



MTC-00003742

From: Albert Delgado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft is Guilty and needs to be kept honest!
    Microsoft is Guilty.
    The present proposed settlement does not protect open source 
projects like Samba which uses Windows calls in its implementation. 
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, 
...'
    I propose that Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Compliance Committee. We need strong citizens who understand 
technology so that Microsoft will be kept as honest as possible and 
accountable for its actions Microsoft wanted to give to the schools. 
Well I think it best that Microsoft give money as to Windows boxes, 
so as to not further try to monopolize the education market away 
from Apple computer.
    Albert Delgado
    Technology Coordinator
    Whittier School
    Chicago, Il



MTC-00003743

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:54pm
Subject: Public comment
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives.
    America is based on freedom of choice; but students in Americas` 
public schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill 
for the coming generation of employees, on the products provided to 
them. Today, the Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to broaden the 
scope of that choice and thus empower generations yet unborn. It 
also has the opportunity to cavill to Bill Gates and thus must 
choose between greatness and ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
http://opensourceschools.org/
article.php`story=20011207001012102
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer.
    Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely
    William G. Canaday
    Detroit, MI.
    CC:KLUG,LUGWASH,Metro Detroit Linux Users Group,SUNCO...



MTC-00003744

From: michel@email.netonecom.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as I read it is a clear violation of the rights 
of the people who use the Linux operating system.
    When we look into Section III(J)(2) ` meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...' and Section 
III(D) we find very something very disturbing. The impression is 
that Microsoft is likely to use this to crush Linux which is their 
main competitor.
    I hope this will be clarify and that Microsoft will not be able 
to get away with crushing any more competitors.



MTC-00003745

From: none none
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:00pro
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    What I have to say is simple.
    Microsoft has not been punished anywhere near enough yet.
    For someone to think that they have means that they have been 
assimilated by Microsoft.
    I am in my early twenties and have been using my ever changing 
home personal computer system since the age of 6. Using it almost 
every day.
    I am very computer experienced and have seen a lot these past 15 
years. I have `loved' computers all my life. Most of 
those years more than young sexy girls. I `feel' 
computers and operating systems as a 6th sense now. By using a 
computer system for 30 secs I can feel system stability. I am a 
Systems Administrator already.
    This can only be understood by hardcore computer geeks. Unless 
you are one don`t bother trying.
    You only need to know that inside my mind I know Microsoft is 
still wrong and has not been punished. They have not learned and I 
doubt they can.
    Break em up folks. Seperate the company. Microsoft is old lame 
news now.
    If Microsoft doesn`t change drastically then Linux WILL 
eventually succeed. People like me will MAKE IT SO!
    How can a business plan defeat a hardcore geeks 
`love' for systems that work and are

[[Page 24352]]

useful and can actually be fixed without being anally f****d. Excuse 
my french :)
    No business controls Linux, and never will. Even prying Linux 
from my cold dead fingers would be a challenge.
    This WAS all I was going to write and then Windows XP f****d me. 
What a happy little coincidence I will include in this email..
    I am so used to Windows failing that every text document I deal 
with I have to make a backup.
    Take this email for example. I backed it up after I wrote 
it...just in case...might seem crazy BUT while I was fixing a typo, 
I was also holding down the shift key...8 seconds later WinXP hits 
me with an accessibility window. FilterKeys has been enabled now, OH 
great. I don`t even know what this is. I can click OK, Cancel or the 
Settings button. How dare I actually try to change windows by 
pressing the `Settings' button, but I did. Now 
FilterKeys is enabled and my keyboard has completely stopped 
working. Even though FilterKeys doesn`t have a check mark next to it 
in control panel_ accessibility, it is still enabled.
    I had to reboot to be able to type again. I lost all keyboard 
controls and my left mouse button was held down in all text fields. 
Just cause I held down the shift key and paused for an S.
    Naturally, this is called a bug, and every piece of software has 
bugs. BUT...if you go into Add/Remove Programs you won`t find 
`FilterKeys'. Heck I don`t even have Accessibility 
options to remove. If the FilterKeys were still enabled and couldn`t 
be disabled cause of a bug then there`s no way I could use my 
windows system anymore. All because it would take Microsoft weeks to 
release a windowsupdate with a fix, and only weeks if enough people 
had the problem. Even if a fix was released I would have to spend 
money or have my privacy invaded to be able to download that 130k 
fix. Who could ever use Microsoft products without Internet Access? 
or msn? or IE? or OE? even if the icon is gone, who says it`s not 
still write there!
    I don`t speak of bugs. I speak of what I see as a general 
contempt from Microsoft to computer users. An infestation perhaps 
within Microsoft. Splitting the company and seeing where the 
infestation remains could find the problem. Microsoft doesn`t 
provide a simple means of uninstalling pieces of their operating 
system. The whole system is tied together, with loose cut ends 
hanging around like a messy ball of dirty string. I am not blind, I 
do not need any accessibility, yet with Windows XP I have no choice 
and I will have to spend 30+ mins researching on the web how to 
uninstall accessibility. Windows rarely gets better, typically gets 
worse.
    Let`s say FilterKeys messed up with RedHat Linux.
    Well..one click for a terminal window...one command to fix the 
problem...rpm e FilterKeys_0.0.1 beta [enter] and filterkeys 
would exist no more. (RPM has a GUI interface too) Maybe but not 
usually I might actually have to open my webbrowser and visit gnome 
or kde if filterkeys was part of gnome or kde. Someone would fix the 
code in mins or hours and perhaps days anyways.
    The Slick Harkonen



MTC-00003746

From: Randy Prakken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not properly address the 
most fundamental problem: The authors of Microsoft Office have 
immediate access to the developers of Microsoft Windows. Making the 
source code `available` to other companies is in no sense 
equivalent. The authors of Office can simply walk to another 
building, spend 15 minutes talking, and thereby obtain man-months or 
even man-years of advantage over any other company, including those 
with access to their source code under the proposed agreement.
    The only reasonable remedy is, at a minimum, to split MS into 
two companies, one of which does Office and one of which does 
everything else.
    There are, however, a number of other issues which have not been 
addressed in any manner by the DOJ remedies. For example, Microsoft 
Internet Explorer and Internet Information Server ignore Internet 
standards in manners which subtly favor all-Microsoft solutions. 
These `bugs` both take advantage of and substantially 
contribute to Microsoft`s monopoly position. Microsoft takes 
advantage of its monopoly in a host of manners which cost all other 
software companies a substantial amount of money. Customers for 
those products, both consumers and companies, of course, pay the 
ultimate cost.
    Randy Prakken
    President
    SwiftView, Inc.
    mailto:randy@swiftview.com http://
www.swiftview.com



MTC-00003747

From: Bill Huffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft case with interest from the 
beginning and was profoundly dissappointed in the accord that was 
reached a short while ago. Microsoft has intentionally violated the 
antitrust laws from the beginning, violated them while negotiating a 
settlement, is doing so currently, and I have no doubt will continue 
to no matter what aggreement is reached. The only thing to do is 
weaken them so that they will be less able to do damage. As for 
their claim that such a move would reduce innovation, I state from 
my 20 years in the computer business that Microsoft has never been a 
major factor in innovation and that in recent years, they have cut 
out most innovation in the PC business. Any idea which is brought to 
a venture capitalist in this valley (Silicon Valley) must pass the 
test: `Will Microsoft, by any conceivable turn of events be 
interested in pursuing this technology itself?' If the answer 
is yes, the idea will not be funded. The venture capitalists know 
that Microsoft will do anything, legal or illegal, to get where they 
want to go, and that a good idea is no defense against Microsoft`s 
treachery. Thus is innovation stiffled in the PC area.
    Microsoft will almost certainly make a joke of its promise to 
disseminate information about interfacing to their software. There 
are scores of ways not to help other software companies without 
appearing to do so and Microsoft has shown both the will and ability 
to do things like this before. I have a friend who interviewed at 
Microsoft. He interviewed with Bill Gates. The _only_ 
subject in the entire interview was how my friend would propose to 
force others out of the market for the portion of Microsoft my 
friend might run.
    Mr. Gates was not interested in anything about him but what his 
business plan would be to take over the market and force others out. 
Microsoft shows absolutely no signs of changing any of this and the 
present ruling is a sign that they (and others) are perfectly free 
to go on using their monopoly position in Windows and in Word 
Document Format to force others to accept their domination of yet 
more markets.
    Bill



MTC-00003748

From: EthnEstes@netscape.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:14pm
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement.'
    My name is ethan estes a resident of massachusetts and i just 
wanted to tell you that this preposed settlement is awful. The idea 
that you are making Microsoft donate their technology to 
disadvantage schools is horrible. The idea is to give students who 
have no options oppurtunities-choices really. Yet the way you are 
doing it gives Microsoft all the controls to decide what the 
students get-what lesson do you want to teach these students. This 
would be like forcing momma bell to install telephone service into 
any home they already didn`t control back in the eighties rather 
than what happened-they were split up. Microsoft has such power 
already with there OS-why give them more? The idea is to force 
Microsoft to survive in a COMPETATIVE market-this will rerquire them 
not to impead the development of other software developers-
application developers as well as OS developers. If a school system 
wants Linux computers they should be able to get them, not be 
railroaded into Microsofts vision of our future. You should take a 
look at the briefing apple computer has filed in CA. It`s 
suggestions would force Microsoft to attempt to be a good citizen-
you need to remember that Microsoft is not in the business of making 
our lives better or giving us choices-That is our government`s job. 
I for one would like to see you stop playing buddy-buddy with them 
and treat them like a company found guilty of abusing their position 
as a monopoly. That is a federal offense is it not?
    ethan a estes



MTC-00003749

From: Robert Slover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am writing to express my dismay with the proposed remedy to be 
imposed upon Microsoft Corporation as settlement for the

[[Page 24353]]

corporate crimes committed by the company. I thought the original 
proposed solution (breaking up the company) was weak, and had hoped 
that a stronger remedy would be imposed (complete public disclosure 
of the source code of any product with over 50% market share, and 
complete public disclosure of all API`s, protocols, file system 
structures and data file formats). Instead, I have been disappointed 
to find a new remedy proposed which is far weaker still.
    Now, with generalities out of the way I`d like to express my 
opinion regarding specifics of the proposed `$1B' 
settlement. Foremost, I will not be fooled by the proposed $870M in 
`software' (as valued by Microsoft). I know that the 
true cost of software development is realized when you ship the 
`first' copy, and the incremental cost of the 
`second' copy is very, very low, approaching a value 
less than a dollar per copy in incremental cost above several 
thousand copies. I`d guesstimate the actual cost to Microsoft at 
someplace near $8M. My second concern regards the language meant to 
protect Microsoft`s competitors from damage due to unrevealed and 
poorly documented API`s. The language appears to have been written 
by Microsoft`s own lawyers, for it clearly gives Microsoft the 
privilege of only revealing API`s to entities Microsoft recognizes 
`(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business'. This means that if you`re non-profit, a hobbyist, 
shareware author, free software author, or Microsoft says you won`t 
be in business long, you will be ignored. This would also exclude 
the government from obtaining documentation of the same API`s and 
file formats. This is ludicrous. The language here strengthens 
Microsoft`s monopoly and legally guarantees it a method to continue 
to extend and abuse that monopoly. Get it straight, people, we are 
betting our future on the `information economy', and by 
doing so we must guarantee that the infrastructure of such an 
economy (API`s and file formats) is publicly disseminated and 
scrutinized. Further, the `shelf life' of a document is 
more quickly limited by the lifetime of the application that 
produced it than by file storage life. (I have XyWrite documents on 
disk from 6 years ago...find me a copy of XyWrite anywhere to read 
it. Given documentation of the format (which I have) I can write 
something to recover it if necessary.) Ancillary concerns I have 
about the targeting of Microsoft`s restitution to public schools are 
the effect this will have on Apple Computer, which still maintains a 
healthy niche in schools, and the plans Microsoft has once it has 
extended deeper into this space...in particular, the draconian 
licensing strategy it is instituting...that requires licensing 
`each and every year thereafter' or the software simply 
stops working. I volunteer my time at a local private (but 
financially poor) school maintaining their PC`s in a computer lab 
that I built from donated software and parts. This will be the same 
sort of environment these poorer schools will have to maintain. I 
cannot imagine the hassle involved with the new licensing, where 
machines must be `activated' for hardware changes. I`ve 
spent many a night without sleep, swapping scrap parts in and out of 
a machine in an effort to have it working for class the next 
morning, when something `died' the day before. This 
school doesn`t have internet access for the activation (not 
available here `til late 2002, we're told). It will be 
an impossible maintenance situation for many of these schools.
    A better remedy would be financing a single broadband drop into 
the public libraries of the poorest communities, and allowing 
schools in those communities, regardless of financial condition, to 
`piggyback' off of the community broadband link via 
wireless ethernet or local (cheap) copper loop. The schools can get 
the donated hardware and software (I`ve got tons of Chapter 1 stuff 
thrown out by the public schools), without Microsoft`s interference, 
it is really easy to do.
    Regardless, I think the proposed settlement is the 
`worst' I`ve seen yet.
    Some background: I`m currently employed as a Software Engineer 
in the Telecom industry. I`m 32 years old, and I`ve been writing 
software since I was age 10. I first became aware of Microsoft as 
something more than the vendor of a fairly poor ROM-based BASIC 
interpreter about 1985 or so, when DOS was becoming a common term 
after the introduction of the IBM PC. At the time, there were 
multiple DOS variants and I cut my DOS teeth on the Zenith DOS 
implementation before settling on Digital Research DOS as the 
undeniably `best' implementation. I found all DOS 
implementations terribly lacking, particularly if compared to 
Digital Equipment Corp`s VMS or Apple`s Macintosh environment. By 
1990 I was doing some work that was later incorporated into 
insurance software for Prudential and other work that became part of 
commercial game software, both for the DOS environment. I leveraged 
this work to get access to the latest compilers which would run on 
Microsoft`s `Windows 3.0', which finally looked like it 
might actually amount to something. After a few months of dredging 
through the muck of an API Microsoft presented, I abandoned any 
thought of ever writing Windows software. Although I had verbally 
sided with the League for Programming Freedom against the Apple 
look-and-feel lawsuit, I felt Apple `was' being 
screwed...that Microsoft had written Word and Excel for the 
Macintosh only as a way to get a head start on those same 
applications for their cloned API. It was so obvious, with the 
torturous Pascal stack ordering even though Microsoft`s de-facto 
language for Windows was C/C++. This put me on the alert to 
`watch' this company, and I did.
    I watched Microsoft cut deals with OEM`s, bundle `DOS 
Upgrades' that could be installed just like the full version, 
re-arrange memory layout in DOS shells to break Lotus 
1-2-3, insert special code to break Borland 
applications, steal code from Stack Data long enough to kill their 
market, then buy up a competitor (who no longer had a market either) 
once they were slapped on the wrist for it. I watched them bundle a 
memory manager to kill QuarterDeck`s main utility market (and along 
with it went DesqView, SideKick, and DesqView/X). I watched it grow 
in market share so quickly that it killed much better products in 
the same space (Xerox GEM and GEOS). I watched it acquire small 
companies with much better technologies simply to bury them (I can`t 
recall the name of the company, but at the moment I am thinking of a 
company that allowed database queries in natural english, this 
competed with MS/Access). Outside of the DOS/Windows space, I 
watched Microsoft`s (never fulfilled) promise of an open high-level 
API influence Digital Equipment Corporation to abandon their own EWS 
for their joint venture with MIT (X windows, which still doesn`t 
have that high-level API). I watched it go to bed with IBM on OS/2, 
influencing IBM to abandon their partnership with NeXT computer, 
then later as soon as they had conveniently lifted what they could 
from IBM, go off on a (closed) tangent of their own. I worked as a 
database programmer and a PC tech during this time, and after 
discovering Linux on the PC, moved into Telecom and Unix 
development.
    After that, I spent exactly 5 years as a programmer and database 
admin for a local Engineering college (top ranked undergrad 
engineering college the last 3 years) where we had implemented a 
program supplying laptops to all students (and incorporating them 
into classrooms) 8 `years' ago. To begin with, and for 
(I believe) 4 years, we had a deal with Microsoft in which we paid a 
site license fee, and supplied their programming, operating system, 
and office applications on our own custom CD set...as part of the 
agreement, students owned a valid license to the software when they 
left or graduated. In the 5th year, they claimed no knowledge of 
such a prior contract and students lost ownership of their software 
licenses upon leaving (though that year we did get to bundle it 
ourselves, since their own installer simply did not work at all with 
the particular combination of products). In the 6th year, we were 
forced, with no negotiation, to use the license terms agreed to by 
Microsoft and IU (the model for their current Educational licenses). 
I found it interesting, since the DOJ case was going on at the time, 
that there were Microsoft documents released during the trial 
recognizing any flexibility in negotiating site licenses, 
particularly in education, as a vulnerability to price pressure that 
had to be closed. I have no doubts at all that Microsoft had full 
knowledge of our original licensing terms.
    I`m back in Telecom, and for the first time in my work life I am 
forced to run a Microsoft OS on my workstation for the sole purpose 
of editing MS Word documents stored in our engineering document 
repository. If the file format were open, I would not need to do 
this. I`ve not owned any Microsoft software of my own since 1990, 
and am using it at home now only by virtue (or vice) of a department 
laptop borrowed for work over the weekend because the Microsoft VPN 
software used on our internet gateway speaks a proprietary variant 
of the protocol and is unable to deal with NAT used on my home 
network, which consists of various Unix machines, 2 Macintoshes, and 
a Linux PC. So, even as a computer industry professional, wary of 
Microsoft longer than most people

[[Page 24354]]

even knew it existed, I`m forced to succumb to using their software 
just to do one menial part of my job. This obviously bothers me, and 
nothing in the proposed remedy addresses these concerns.
    Regards,
    Robert J. Slover
    Commercial Software Engineer `and' Free Software 
Developer



MTC-00003750

From: Tom Keiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an attorney with some antitrust experience, and, for the 
past 15 years, a computer consultant. During that time, I have had a 
ringside seat to the anti-competitive behavior that led to this 
lawsuit, and also to the fiasco that characterized the 1995 US v 
Microsoft settlement, in which that Consent Decree was sloppy, 
ambiguous, and was later turned to Microsoft`s advantage at every 
opportunity. Indeed, if it weren`t for the DOJ`s carelessness, and 
Microsoft`s clever use of the 1995 settlement, this trial and this 
settlement would have been largely unnecessary.
    One of the only market forces that seems likely to create any 
kind of level playing field in the software industry is so-called 
open-source software, such as Linux, Apache, Samba, Sendmail, Perl, 
BSD and others. There is ample market evidence to suggest that this 
software is going to hold Microsoft to new standards of quality and 
pricing if it is allowed to survive and flourish.
    And yet, after this lengthy trial, and all the evidence adduced, 
there is not one word or safety mechanism in the Proposed Final 
Judgment that would aid open-source software in this critical, pro-
competitive role. Instead, the Judgement is sprinkled with the terms 
`OEM', `firms', `business' and 
so on, none of which describe the open-source organizations which 
are not `businesses', `firms' or any of the 
other protected alphabet-soup entities. Rather, they are loose 
collections of programmers from all over the world, organized not in 
any legal or business entity, but over the internet to accomplish 
common programming goals. These programmers, much more than 
`internet service providers', `internet access 
providers' or `internet content providers' need to 
have access to the secret keys needed to interface with Microsoft`s 
proprietary software. Yet, all of the `providers' just 
mentioned are specifically protected in the Judgment and the open-
source programmers are never even mentioned.
    Moreover, access to these secrets is to be by `reasonable 
and non-discriminatory licenses' but no mechanism is provided 
for the open-source programmers to be eligible to obtain these 
licenses or, for that matter, to pay for them, at whatever 
`reasonable' rates turn out to be.
    Further, according to the DOJ`s own interpretation of Section 
III.J.2.a, `Subsection III.J.2.a. allows Microsoft to 
condition such disclosure or licensing on the recipient or licensee: 
... (b) having a reasonable business need for the information for a 
planned or shipping product; (c) meeting reasonable and objective 
standards for the authenticity and viability of its business; ... 
'
    One must ask, especially in light of the calamitous 1995 DOJ 
settlement, whether `having a reasonable business need for the 
information ...' or an `authentic[] and viab[le] 
business...' is not a deliberate trapdoor to eliminate open-
source programmers as recipients of this information, as they create 
no `planned or shipping products' (in any commercial 
sense), and have no `business', authentic or valid. As 
we have seen in the 1995 settlement, Microsoft will not hesitate to 
use this language as a club against its most formidable competition, 
and the DOJ may not even be aware of the implications of this 
language in this context..
    In short, perhaps because of the urgency of tending to the 
problems of September 11th, perhaps out of technological ignorance, 
the DOJ is capping a successful trial and appeal with an ill-
conceived settlement. One which not only has many holes and 
ambiguities, but which fails to promote the very goal of the 
Antitrust Division: encourage competition. I urge the court to 
reject the Proposed Final Judgment, or any similar alternative, 
which fails to offer full protection to the survival of open-source 
software as the best deterrent to future Microsoft (or any other) 
monopolistic products and practices.
    Respectfully yours,
    Thomas E. Keiser



MTC-00003751

From: default user
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO settlement with Microsoft should include any of Microsoft`s 
Products, and marketing gimmicks, only cash and futher restrictions 
on their closed source anti-competitive products.
    With a 35 Billion cash position and a 1 billion a month income 
anything else from Microsoft would be an insult.
    The damage done SO FAR by Microsoft is miniscule compared to 
FUTURE losses that will be caused by a monopoly that creates 
mediocre products. The US Government and its agencies should use 
(and promote) OpenSource software and operating systems to save 
taxpayers money, and not add insult to injury by adding cash to the 
Microsoft coffers.
    Respectfully,
    C. Svanberg



MTC-00003752

From: amy@envy.cs.umass.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
140 Governor`s Drive
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW.,
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to you because I am concerned about the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Although Microsoft has 
been found to be acting as a monopoly, the proposed settlement does 
not adequately open the market nor does it punish Microsoft in a 
manner that will change their behavior.
    Because of their currently dominant status in the market, any 
competitor to Microsoft, either from another commercial company or 
from the open source software movement, needs to be able to create 
software which can inter-operate with Microsoft. This means that 
Microsoft needs to be forced to freely release its file formats and 
communications standards as well as to allow software such as Sun`s 
Java to run under Microsoft`s operating system. These standards need 
to be released in advance of each new Microsoft product so that 
their competitors have time to upgrade their products as well.
    I am also concerned that the punishment being levied at 
Microsoft is too lenient. Paying their fine by donating computers 
and software does not cost them very much and only serves to broaden 
their future market base. Instead of punishing them, it may serve as 
a long term gain. Instead, require them to pay the government in 
cash and then the government can use the money for education. This 
way their money will train a new generation of computer scientists 
who can create better software for everyone.
    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Amy McGovern



MTC-00003753

From: Joel P. Hnatow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    Regarding the proposed settlement between the US DOJ and 
Microsoft, there are several notable issues that I observed. Section 
III(J)(2) of the settlement refers to communications protocols, and 
the fact that Microsoft need not document anything regarding these 
APIs. This effectively allows Microsoft to use their monopolistic 
powers to disallow Open Source software the ability to communicate 
with Microsoft products.
    An example of Open Source software which communicates with 
Microsoft software is the Samba project. This software allows 
computers running operating systems such as Linux or Unix 
communicate over a LAN (local area network) with a computer running 
Microsoft Windows.
    In my opinion, one of the most heinous crimes Microsoft has 
committed is the fact that they rampantly disregard standards. When 
they happen to introduce a particular standard to the computing 
industry, they tend to leverage this power to drive other products 
out-of-business, in a monopolistic and bullying fashion.
    Simply forcing Microsoft to document many of their protocols, 
such as the Word document, Excel file, or their networking protocol 
(SMB/CIFS) would, in my opinion, be a much more deserving 
`punishment' for Microsoft.
    Please reconsider the anti-trust settlement. As a student, I 
often use Open Source software, because it is very powerful and

[[Page 24355]]

free. If Microsoft is allowed to make their products inoperable with 
other software after the settlement as they have before it, 
including Open Source software, where does this leave students, such 
as myself, who use Open Source software primarily for economic 
reasons?
    Thank you for your time.
    Joel P. Hnatow
    301 S. Pugh St. #304
    State College, PA 16801



MTC-00003754

From: Benny Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s 
don`t run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Benny Butler
    Nexus ITG
    www.nexusitg.com



MTC-00003755

From: jdumm1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please offer the same protection from monopolies to non profit 
software developers that you give to profit driven software 
developers.
    Thanks,
    Jeff Dumm.



MTC-00003756

From: Steve Ericson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned by the Proposed Final Judgement put forth 
by the US DOJ against Microsoft. In particular, I understand that 
3rd party not-for-profit projects will not be afforded the same 
concessions that 3rd party for-profit corporations would. 
Specifically, Microsoft could withhold important information such as 
APIs that essentially would prevent open source projects from ever 
integrating with Microsoft products.
    The best hope for a competitive industry would be for a company, 
possibly not-for-profit, to break the juggernaut that Microsoft has 
on Office software. One of the barriers to entry in this field is 
the complexity of the file formats, and it seems that a not-for-
profit corporation would not be able to obtain documentation from 
Microsoft under the terms of the Proposed Final Judgement.
    In my opinion, the Proposed Final Judgement does not go far 
enough in this regard to ensure long-term competition in the 
software industry.
    +Steve



MTC-00003757

From: Derek Wong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the current proposed settlement, which only 
requires Microsoft to stop practising the illegal acts they had 
committed in the past in the way they were committed in the past. 
The message to the industry is:
    (i) bullies are not punished even if caught;
    (ii) bullies only need to stop using the same dirty tricks in 
future fights;
    (iii) bullies can still keep their unfair winnings;
    (iv) victims do not get compensated;
    (v) the fights will resume with bullies in their undeserved 
dominant positions and victims in their weakened positions; and
    (vi) victims are motivated to use dirty tricks, as the above 
points show, the worst that could happen to bullies is still pretty 
good.
    I firmly believe that had Microsoft NOT committed their illegal 
activities in the past, the public would be having a better 
computing experience through the innovation of a vibrant industry. 
Instead, the progress of the industry has been incremental since the 
rise of Microsoft. Fundamental innovations, since then, have been 
few and far between. What innovations there were, such as Netscape 
browser and Sun Java, were quickly destroyed by Microsoft by means 
of illegal tactics.
    A settlement must send a loud message that illegal behaviour 
will not be tolerated and a heavy price will be paid by bullies to 
victims.
    Derek Wong



MTC-00003758

From: Jon Kirshbaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs and Madames:
    I wish to state that it is very important that Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices be effectively curtailed.
    I am particularly concerned that open source projects (such as 
Apache and Samba) and Linux, which are not commercial endeavors, 
need to be protected from Microsoft and its illegal business 
maneuvoers.
    Please do not let a weak settlement allow Microsoft to continue 
harming competitors who attempt to provide users and customers with 
non-Microsoft and Microsoft-compatible software.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Jon Kirshbaum
    Portland, OR
    jonnyk@nwlink.com



MTC-00003759

From: Michael A. Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am distressed to learn that the terms of the proposed 
settlement would assist Microsoft in its attempt to weaken the open 
software movement. I belive that open-source software can be an 
extraordinarily useful and beneficial force in our economy. Please 
do not allow Microsoft to ignore enterprises that it deems 
`non-commercial'.
    In addition, I would like to recommend that Steve Satchell be 
placed on the three-member commitee stationed at Microsoft that will 
help enforce the settlement. I have known Steve for years, and have 
great respect for his abilities.
    Thank you,
    Michael Perry
    347 Clay Street
    Nevada City, CA 95959
    CC:perry@paytoll.FirmWorks.COM@inetgw



MTC-00003760

From: Adam Burrill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a Microsoft certified systems engineer with nine years of 
supporting MS and competing products, I would like to contribute 
some comments on the Microsoft Antitrust trial settlement.
    Microsoft has shown dishonesty in marketing a wide variety of 
high quality to low quality software products. While I have 
appreciated many of their products, I have

[[Page 24356]]

also lamented a dearth of competition from small and large 
competitors. I support the institution of a 3-person compliance 
review committee for ensuring competitive markets and encourage the 
DOJ to give it sufficient power to do it`s job.
    I would encourage this settlement to take into account many of 
Microsoft`s most potent competitors: free software and open source 
software projects such as Linux and Apache that provide the 
commercial world with some of the best software available (and keep 
Microsoft engineers at their best).
    I would also like to recommend Steve Satchell of InfoWorld as a 
member of this tribunal, as he has both the commercial and technical 
knowledge to make fair judgements that will keep the markets healthy 
and competitive.
    Thank you,
    Adam Burrill, MCSE
    PMB 737
    1122 E Pike St.
    Seattle, WA 98122



MTC-00003761

From: basher584
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/9/01 11:58pm
Subject: [selinux@home.com: [WLUG] Public comment]
    I couldn`t have said it better myself. I have been using Redhat 
Linux exclusively for almost 2 years (because it works better for 
me). Its an viable option and if you let Microsoft into the schools 
like the plan is, then it closes the market off even more for 
Redhat. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to 
email me.
    Benjamin Noggle
    East Lansing, MI
From: Bill 
To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: [WLUG] Public comment
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:54:46-0500
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives. America is based on freedom of choice; but 
students in Americas` public schools can only learn to use 
computers, an essential skill for the coming generation of 
employees, on the products provided to them. Today, the Dept. of 
Justice has an opportunity to broaden the scope of that choice and 
thus empower generations yet unborn. It also has the opportunity to 
cavill to Bill Gates and thus must choose between greatness and 
ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. 
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely
    William G. Canaday
    Detroit, MI.



MTC-00003762

From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:00am
Subject: On the settlement
    Dear Sir (or Madam),
    As you may read at < http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html >, the proposed settlement is frankly lousy. 
Microsoft is getting off far to a easy.
    I would like to put in a good word for Steve Satchell for the 
three-member committee to oversee Microsoft.
    You know, I have read a bit of history of the Gilded Age, and 
how the railroad barons behaved back then. Aren't we a little 
more enlightened now?
    Respectfully,
    Dean Moore
    2435 7th
    Boulder, CO 80304



MTC-00003763

From: brichter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    As a working American citizen I wanted to write a message 
explaining how displeased I am with the Microsoft Settlement.
    If someone does nothing about this and the settlement sticks, we 
as Americans will suffer in the long run.
    I do not agree with 80% of what is in the settlement. I live in 
Illlinois and believe it was a big mistake and letdown for Ryan to 
agree with the proposed settlement. I really don`t think he even 
read it.
    Let me just take one single portion quoted from an article:
    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, ...'
    What this means is that projects that have BUILT the Internet 
into what it is today, Microsoft can now cut out of the picture if 
they choose.
    I will not comment on all the other sections of the settlement, 
there are so many I do not agree with. Most technical people I speak 
with believe this settlement is a free ticket for Microsoft to 
continue their behavior and make it even harder for people that want 
to help the technical movement for the better and that are not 
finacially driven.
    Microsoft went into these trials with the possibility of being 
broken up into several companies and feared loosing ground. Now they 
come out clean with a license to kill basically.
    You have to remember your roots. The roots are NOT Microsoft. 
They have mixed in like weeds here and are overtaking everything 
that was put in place and changing everything out for their finacial 
gain.
    Again I want to stress how dissapointed I am in our government 
concerning this issue. Thank God there are several states that do 
not think Microsoft is the magic bullet to bring us out of a 
recession.
    Please add my letter to the Federal Register that I have been 
told will be built based on feedback.
    Thank you very much,
    Brian Richter
    Illinois



MTC-00003764

From: Raffael Cavallaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a concerned citizen writing to ask that you insist that any 
settlement be much tougher on Microsoft than the details of the 
proposed settlement currently circulating. As you know, Microsoft 
has already been found guilty of violations of anti-trust law, has

[[Page 24357]]

already been found to be a monopoly, and these rulings have been 
sustained by the US Supreme Court. Such transgressions, especially 
where they damage the interests of consumers, as well as the 
interests of many high technology businesses, demand severe 
penalties.
    Some have proposed requiring a forced revelation of the source 
code of the various Windows operating systems. Others suggest 
forcing Microsoft to release versions of Windows with no internet 
application software included, so that Microsoft`s anti-competitive 
effect on that market can be rectified by allowing computer 
manufacturers to include non-Microsoft browser software on new 
machines. Both of these remedies would be just, in my opinion. But 
Microsoft is already trying to sell a pathetically weak remedy.
    In particular, Microsoft`s proposed settlement would cost them 
very little (estimated by Apple Inc. to be a little as 10 million 
dollars) while gaining Microsoft an even stronger foohold in the 
education market, one of the few markets that Microsoft does not yet 
dominate. Microsoft should be forced to pay cash (and a mere one 
billion dollars is not sufficient) to an independent non-profit 
group that would decide for itself what products to purchase for our 
nation`s school children with the settlement money.
    In addition, Microsoft is seeking to prevent any restrictions on 
their behavior from applying to non-profit groups. This would mean 
that Microsoft would be allowed to shut out government agencies, our 
nations colleges and universites, and Open Source software projects 
from interoperability with Windows. This is simply unacceptable. 
This language must be removed from any settlement.
    Whatever remedies you and the states` Attorneys General demand, 
they must be tougher than a mere Consent Decree. Remember, we are 
here in the first place because the original Consent Decree signed 
by Microsoft was too weak to stop their monopolistic and illegal 
practices. Another weak Consent Decree will guarantee that the 
future of computing, indeed, the future of high technology, will be 
not merely dominated, but completely controlled by a single 
predatory monopoly. The victims of this monopoly will undoubtedly be 
both consumers and businesses, indeed, all the people of the United 
States.
    It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the 21st century 
is in your hands. Please don`t give away the potential benefits of 
such a powerful technology to a single, greedy, predatory monopoly. 
Please demand a tougher settlement. I, the voters, and your 
posterity will surely thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Raffael Cavallaro, PhD
    raffael@mediaone.net



MTC-00003765

From: Ivan Teliatnikov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:19am
Subject: just another comment
    You settlement decision is a joke, just another joke that 
illustrates how hopeless the American Legal system is. MS run 
computers for the poor just to make them poorer and more dependent 
on the giant. Shame on you guys!!!!!
    PhD Candidate,
    Ivan Teliatnikov,
    University of Sydney.



MTC-00003766

From: Markus Diersbock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is like the greedy kid at the birthday party who sits 
at the table and grabs all the other kid`s cake. He doesn`t grab all 
the pieces because he`s hungry, he just doesn`t want anyone else to 
eat.
    So birthday party after birthday party, Billy steals the cake 
while the others kids stare. Some people will say, `But who 
cares that little Billy steals everyone`s cake, he gives a couple of 
pieces to the poor kids down the street.'
    Well, what about the kids who were at the table? This analogy 
has played on throughout the life of Microsoft. With a stranglehold 
on PC manufactures to sign exclusionary OS contracts they lockout 
their competition, not only in the OS market, but any other market 
that can be reduced to an icon sitting on the consumer`s desktop.
    So the OEMs are forced to bundle unrelated products together to 
sell to the consumer. The padded price is then funneled to Redmond. 
Those who don`t comply get `punished' through jacked-up 
pricing or non-renewal of their contracts.
    `Protection fee'_isn`t this what the mob does? 
I`m a programmer and have used computers since the Apple ][+. And I 
REALLY LOVE Microsoft development tools, but here`s the rub.
    Microsoft told the development community in the late 80`s 
`Come write for Microsoft Windows, look at all the great 
things you can do, blah, blah, blah.' The reason being that 
more applications you have for an OS the more people want the OS and 
thus greater adoption of Windows over other OS`s.
    But Microsoft didn`t want ONLY their OS PIECE of Cake they 
wanted the WHOLE cake. After Windows was pretty well-entrenched 
Microsoft turned around and started writing their own competing 
applications using secret hooks (Undocumented APIs) that gave their 
applications better power then the 3rd party developers they had 
been courting years earlier.
    They ran company after company out of business going after one 
market then the next. They were pretty successful in crushing 
everyone except AOL in online and Intuit in personal finance 
software. Basically giving the birthday party, inviting everyone in, 
and when the presents arrived, booted everyone out with no cake.
    So there those same people are again, `Well Microsoft 
gives money to the poor, blah, blah, blah.' Well what about 
the employee`s families of the companies that Microsoft ran out of 
business?
    Microsoft has NO friends_they screw everyone. The 
developers, their partners, even the customers. How many in the tech 
community came to their defence during these court proceedings? 
Probably just as many who came to the aid of Standard Oil. So here 
we are again, years later. Billy has cake frosting all over his 
face, he didn`t get a spanking for his past misdeeds and he`s on his 
way to the next birthday party.
    Hmmm, wonder what the outcome will be?
    Markus Diersbock
    Programmer
    http://www.crowdshare.com/profile.asp
    CC:bob@cringely.com@inetgw



MTC-00003767

From: Travis Folck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Hello sir/madam:
    I have been following the Microsoft case closely since it began. 
The latest settlement proposal is non exceptable.
    `Punishing' Microsoft by `making' them 
donate software and computers to some of the poorest schools is not 
a punishment. At first it may seem to put a dent in their checkbook, 
but, as Microsoft may well know, those children will grow up only 
knowing, and dependant on Microsoft products. Thus, the monopoly 
cycle begins again. I believe Microsoft knows this, because they 
donate software to schools already.
    As yourself, and Microsoft knows, the Open Source Movement is 
the biggest threat to Microsoft`s monopoly. Because no one 
`owns' Linux or other Open Source software, there is no 
company for Microsoft to buy out or to do a hostile take over. But 
the Final Judgement Section III(J)(2), does not protect Open Source.
    Microsoft will use this section to find a way to stop all Open 
Source projects, thus squashing their only real competitor. 
Microsoft will find a way to take advantage of Secion III (J)(2)!
    Nine other states have developed their own proposal, part of 
which states that Microsoft must allow third party developers to 
develop a version of Microsoft Office for other operating systems 
such as Linux. I applaud these efforts; however; I believe making 
Microsoft release the proprietary code of their Microsoft Office 
File formats (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access) to the public for a 
set period of time, such at 10 years, is a more just punishment than 
currently proposed.
    This would allow other developers to make their office products 
be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office. This would break 
Microsoft`s monopoly in more ways than by allowing third parties to 
port Microsoft Office to other operating oystems.
    I am a system administrator for a non-profit company. The only 
reason why we use Microsoft Windows and Office is because we have 
Office files that merge data from our database server. There are 
other programs, such as StarOffice, that can read office files, but 
not 100%. Because of this, our Word files that use Mail Merge with 
our database doesn`t work with anything but Microsoft Office. Thus, 
we are forced to use Microsoft`s software.
    If the Microsoft Office file format was made open to the public, 
programs like Star Office could be 100% compatible with Microsoft

[[Page 24358]]

Office files. This would allow companies like us to move to other 
operating systems, such as Linux, and use any office program that we 
like, such as Star Office, to read our Microsoft Office documents 
and it would read it correctly.
    As you can see, this would break the Microsoft monopoly with 
more impact than by just having a third party port Microsoft Office 
to another operating system.
    Thank you,
    Travis Folck
    System Administrator / Webmaster
    The Urban Alternative



MTC-00003768

From: Shaun Bava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed in the MS settlement and feel that if 
this settlement is accepted, the american people are being cheated 
and the government has wasted many american tax dollars. Microsoft 
is one of the shiftiest companies there is, and with this settlement 
MS has plenty of room to maneuver around the proposed restrictions. 
With this settlement the US government is making the statement that 
criminal behavior is acceptable as long as you have a big wallet to 
back it up.
    What about those affected by MSes monopoly, or the customers 
forced to buy their products, or the inflated costs of MS Office. It 
is baffling that it has taken this long for an investigation, look 
at DR-DOS, the battle with apple, the failure of NeXT`s 
OpenStep Mach against a shoddy product called Windows 3.0, and the 
current battle MS is waging against open source and the control of 
the internet. MS should be forced to pay it`s competitors for it 
misgivings and should be forced to drop the OEM deal where every pc 
comes with windows. Lets look back at NeXT, great product but MS 
would not make software for it and it was locked out of OEM 
licensing by the MS restrictive OEM license. Then with the release 
of NT and Windows 95 MS ripped of the interface and stole many of 
their innovative ideas from NeXT. Next we have Netscape, a company 
despite being the established player in internet software MS gave 
their stuff away which forced netscape to follow but since this was 
netscapes only business they could not afford to compete and 
ultimately fell behind and was forced out of business. Or recently 
Be, a company with a promising OS. How many more people must lose 
their jobs and companies be destroyed before MS is stopped. Everyday 
MS extends the monopoly further by moving into new fields but we let 
them continue. I feel like MS should get their punishment and under 
the settlement little is addressed. While unprofessional I 
understand Judge Jackson`s comments and feel that he was impartial, 
but after hearing years of testimony and the things MS has done with 
such arrogance he was disgusted and obviously wanted to nail 
microsoft for the terrible things they have done. The way this case 
is now being handled makes me upset as an american and represents 
exactly what is wrong with the US today. The US and it`s success was 
based on the hard work and ingenuity of the American people but MS 
contrary to the American way has built a monopoly on shoddy 
products, stolen ideas, monopolistic force, and arrogance. As 
Americans we should have the best not what someone forces us to use.



MTC-00003769

From: Kresmoi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At any level, it seems ludicrous to `punish' 
Microsoft by handing over one billion dollars worth of the market 
for PC`s in education. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing 
monopolistic power, and the result is the expansion of that power? 
Since Microsoft seems so willing to donate products 
`worth' a billion dollars to these poor schools, why not 
have Microsoft just give them a billion dollars hard cash to use on 
computers any way they like?
    Thank you for your time,
    Kevin McCloskey



MTC-00003770

From: morgan@transmeta.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38am
Subject: Comments on the proposed Microsoft Antitrust Remedy 
Document
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on the `Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (TPJ)'. It is my understanding that a general 
requst for comments on the proposed remedy is in effect. My comments 
are based on reading the proposed remedy as presented here: http://
news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-201-7758181-0.html?tag=unkn
    I have significant concern about the following provision:
    III.C.5:
    Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer 
provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical 
specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement 
that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the 
conclusion of any such offer.
    My concern about the above provision is that it appears to 
permit Microsoft to prohibit an OEM from installing an alternative 
`IAP offer' capable of shutting down the OEM`s product. 
By which I mean it appears that this provision limits the potential 
to power-down the OEM product to a Microsoft product. I feel that 
this is a wholely inappropriate restriction. It would appear to 
effectively require that all OEM`s ensure the `end user' 
use a Microsoft product at least once per power-up of their OEM 
product. This requirement appears completely bizarre as a 
`remedy' to the illegal behaviors of a convicted 
monopoly.
    I should like to see this aspect of this provision reversed. To 
this end, I propose the following re-wording of this section:
    III.C.5: (my proposed revision)
    Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer 
provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical 
specifications published by Microsoft, excluding any requirement 
that the end user directly or indirectly use a Microsoft product.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Andrew G Morgan
    885 Linden Drive
    Santa Clara
    CA 95050-6169
    [In this communication, I speak for myself and do not 
necessarily represent the views of my employer.] 
CC:mike.honda@mail.house.gov@inetgw



MTC-00003771

From: John Blommers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has not been punished for it`s crimes. It has a lot of 
cash on hand. Let`s set a fine double that amount, half due now, the 
other half in installments.
    The money should be used to pay down the national debt. 
Microsoft is leveraging it`s monopoly into other areas such as 
MSNBC, MSN, Gaming etc.
    Let`s prevent it from doing so by limiting it`s right to expand 
into any other areas but Windows. Make Microsoft release it`s hold 
on Bungee.
    Bill Gates is personally abusing his Microsoft fortune via 
Corbis and other ventures. Let`s disallow Bill from using his money 
to personally extend Microsoft`s monopoly into any industry. He is 
also abusing the Gates Foundation`s funds by displacing Microsoft 
competitive computers in schools and colleges_basically 
contributing Windows computers and software to displace Apple and 
Linux.
    Let`s stop the Gates Foundation from using Microsoft products to 
make donations.
    Thank you
    John Blommers



MTC-00003772

From: Roger Schlafly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You are letting Microsoft off easy. Microsoft will continue to 
leverage its OS monopoly, and the proposed settlement has so many 
loopholes that it will be unenforceable.



MTC-00003773

From: DMJ Graphics
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:44am
Subject: Microsoft decides on it`s own punishment?!
    I find it hard to believe that the DOJ would allow Microsoft to 
forge into the only market they don`t have a monopoly 
on. . .the education market.
    Don Montalvo, NYC



MTC-00003774

From: William Stearns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Good day, all,
    I have some reservations about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation.
    In the current situation:
_Microsoft holds a monopoly over the operating system 
industry.

[[Page 24359]]

_Microsoft controls the PC hardware industry by restrictive 
contracts that make it all but impossible to purchase a computer 
without a Microsoft operating system.
_Microsoft holds a monopoly in office applications.
_Microsoft maintains that monopoly by withholding the 
descriptions of the file formats used in their documents.
_Microsoft withholds the documentation concerning API`s and 
network protocols.
    The proposed settlement does not appear to require any punitive 
damages or remedies for past monopolistic practices nor provide any 
specific punishments for future abuses. Section V seems to imply 
that the sole punishment for future abuse is a two year extension, 
`together with such other relief as the Court may deem 
appropriate.' As the DOJ and courts have so far been unable to 
come up with any punishment for past abuses (even after a multi-year 
court case in which Microsoft was found guilty), it seems to be 
insufficient to trust future Court cases to come up with any 
reasonable and effective punishment.
    In essence, the Anti-trust division has put forth a proposed 
settlement that makes no attempt to handle Microsoft corporations 
monopolistic practices.
    In the proposed settlement:
_Section III(A) does not seem to allow for shipping a computer 
without any Microsoft operating system at all.
_Sections III(J)(2) and III(D) appear to specifically exclude 
non-commercial entities from the requirement that Microsoft provide 
API`s documentation and protocol specs. This would have a continued 
stifling effect on the authors of free operating systems such as 
Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, among others.
    The final agreement with Microsoft should include at least the 
following:
_Microsoft shall be required to publish, without restriction 
on use, 1) all API`s and technical documentation for all of its 
operating systems, libraries and applications, 2) the file formats 
used in and technical documentation for all of its applications, 3) 
the complete network protocol descriptions and technical 
documentation for all the network protocols it uses, including any 
proprietary extensions to existing protocols, and 4) the format and 
technical documentation for any filesystems it uses, including but 
not limited to the FAT and NTFS filesystems.
_Microsofts agreements with OEMs and others may not include 
requiring any operating system (Microsoft or other) to be sold with 
a new or used computer, nor may it limit the number of operating 
systems sold.
_Specific punitive damages for past abuses and monopolistic 
practices and punitive damages in the case of future abuses or 
monopolistic practices. The opinions expressed in this note are my 
own and solely my own. They do not represent any employer or 
organization of which I am a part.
    Cheers,
    Bill



MTC-00003775

From: Frank P. Miles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    It is my hope that some modification of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement might occur. While this citizen has no direct financial 
stake in the outcome of this case, as a user of legally developed 
Free Software_which must interoperate with Microsoft 
software_my ability to do my work will be affected by this 
settlement.
    I am not personally very concerned with Microsoft`s continual 
expansion of what it considers as the role of an operating system. 
However, in my work I share documents regularly with others who use 
Microsoft Office applications, and through computer networks which 
include systems running Microsoft Windows. operating systems. In the 
past engineers and programmers have laboriously (and legally) 
reverse-engineered Microsoft file formats, communication protocols, 
and program APIs in order to achieve interoperability. This has been 
done for both commercial and non-commercial software development. 
One consistent Microsoft tactic has been to continually change these 
structures, presumably to make it more difficult for competing 
products to offer interoperability.
    As has been widely noted, the Free Software operating system 
`Linux' appears to be the strongest competitor to 
Microsoft. However the proposed Microsoft settlement appears to 
strengthen Microsoft`s ability to continue to use its ability to 
change its structures, weakening its most important competitor.
    This is clearly the opposite of the intended result. New 
initiatives from Microsoft, particularly some of the networking 
changes anticipated with its `.NET' strategy, may 
accelerate the dominance of Microsoft further into the Internet.
    Since Microsoft has become the standard in the industry (at 
least in part through illegal and anti-competitive means) then they 
should provide enough information to all others to ensure 
interoperability. Microsoft must be compelled to make the 
communication protocols, system APIs, and document file formats 
freely available prior to the sale of any product. This would not 
prevent Microsoft from developing new products, or expanding or 
improving existing products. This would not degrade computer 
security, as `security through obscurity' mostly 
obscures a products` weaknesses to a legitimate customer (see, for 
example, the work of Bruce Schnier). I and others who are interested 
in Free Software (and in commercial software from non-Microsoft 
sources) look forward to appropriate changes in secion III(D), (E), 
and (J).
    Thank you for your attention in this important matter.
    Frank Miles
    6521 Chapin Pl N
    Seattle, WA 98103



MTC-00003776

From: HunterA3
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It`s rather tragic and disheartening to know that if you have 
enough money that even after being found guilty of breaking the law 
that a person or organization can bend the judicial system around to 
benefit the convict and turn their backs on the true victims; the 
consumers who have continually been taken advantage of. I`d like to 
get myself in a car wreck and be in the wrong and pay the eye 
witness rather than the person I hit. It would be much cheaper for 
me to settle that.



MTC-00003777

From: Tony Lucio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:10am
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse: As a U.S. citizen and a consumer of Microsoft 
products, I wish to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act to 
comment on the Justice Department`s proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    It has come to my attention that under the proposed settlement 
non-profit vendors using Open Source software are shut out of the 
proposed settlement. Specifically, Section III (J)(2)(c) allows 
Microsoft to define who is and is not a `business' or 
commercial enterprise that Microsoft may or may not license its 
products to. Further, Section III(D) allows Microsoft to deny said 
vendors the information necessary to make their products compatible 
with Microsoft software. On the surface this may seem like a 
reasonable remedy. But I assure you it is not, for the following 
reasons:
    Open Source is not a giveaway of technology. Each and every Open 
Source vendor has the right to develop and market and copyright its 
own version of an Open Source protocol. The particular protocol 
cannot be infringed without violating the law and the original 
source code itself remains open to the public at large as an 
incentive for development. A great many vendors have accepted this 
formula and developed successful line of products utilizing source 
codes such as Linux, FreeBSD, Apache and Perl, to name a few. Each 
vendor has capitalized on the availability of Open Source to create 
its own unique and protected product. Without the availability of 
the Open Source code these products would not exist today. They have 
created consumer choice and innovation in the limited arenas of 
Server and Operating Systems by freeing these markets up with 
competition.
    Microsoft, on the other hand, has a proven track record of 
seeking to stifle competition by threatening, among other things, to 
withhold licenses from vendors who consider marketing lines of 
products that include a Microsoft competitor`s software. Considering 
a history of anti-trust behavior such as this, Microsoft cannot be 
allowed to determine who is and is not a commercial vendor that it 
may share it`s licenses and product authorizations with. To do so 
would allow Microsoft to define who its future

[[Page 24360]]

 competition will be by legally withholding from a new class of non-
licensees technical information vital to the development of products 
and services compatible with Microsoft products, effectively killing 
off those businesses, as Microsoft already possess 90% of the 
current market in operating systems and software applications and a 
sizeable share of the server and network-level applications markets 
as well. Ultimately consumers would suffer as choice becomes 
narrower and narrower, leaving Microsoft the only developer on the 
playing field. Allowing an anti-trust violator to determine who 
their competition will be is akin to allowing a burglar to pick and 
choose his victims.
    I hope the government will seriously consider the issues I have 
raised here and reject the proposed settlement language I described 
above, and continue to reject any language which allows Microsoft to 
determine who is entitled to share the marketplace with them and how 
they will share it. Software and hardware development, at both the 
business and consumer levels, needs innovation in order to survive. 
New products cannot be developed unless designers and producers can 
integrate those products into a larger marketplace, a marketplace 
which almost exclusively uses Microsoft systems.
    Until the day arises when Microsoft no longer dominates the 
software world with a 90% market share they must be made to make 
available to all vendors the tools necessary not only for their own 
survival but to insure future innovation and development of new 
technologies and services. Any settlement which requires less than 
this is simply not in the public interest.
    Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    Anthony Lucio
    P.O. Box 591
    Placentia, CA. 92871
    To verify my identity, please contact me via e-mail or post. For 
my own security I never divulge my home address or phone number over 
the Internet. Thank you for understanding.



MTC-00003778

From: Craig Jungers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I certainly hope that the existing settlement with Microsoft can 
and will be altered to better protect the open source/free software 
community. In particular, I am concerned that unless MS is required 
to adhere to standards in a more strict way than they have in the 
past (when, as with Java, they embraced the standard and then 
extended it to the point where parts of it became proprietary). As a 
recent example, MS `upgraded' its MSN home page to make 
it unusable unless the user was using Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
When they were attacked for this, MS claimed that the other browsers 
didn`t conform to the W3C protocol. In actual fact, it was MS which 
did not conform to this open standard.
    By simply controlling the sheer numbers of desktops in the 
world, MS is able to change things to make it more likely that 
people will choose its products (which, by the way, are not produced 
for certain open source operating systems) over competitors` 
products because consumers will be afraid that the competition may 
not work on MS-controlled sites. This sort of behavior is typical of 
the way MS uses its position in the marketplace to control that same 
marketplace to its own advantage. I am also in favor of requiring 
that some MS proprietary protocols (in particular the SMB protocol 
which is used for file sharing) be released into the public domain. 
This protocol (which is called SAMBA in the unix/linux world) has 
allowed businesses to share files which are mounted on servers 
running competitive operating systems with users running 
workstations running MS operating systems. SAMBA was only produced 
by reverse engineering (legally) the way MS`s SMB works and then 
producing a license-free work-alike of that process. The ongoing and 
continual fear among those of us who utilize SAMBA is that MS will 
change it in some basic way so that it will become unusable and 
clients will be forced to use MS products to share files with MS 
workstations at much greater expense and at much greater profit to 
MS.
    I firmly believe that the dissenting States are absolutely 
correct when they state that unless MS is held accountable for its 
actions in a specific way, the computer industry will be reduced to 
a single solution controlled absolutely by Bill Gates.
    For this reason I ask the Court to examine via the hearing 
process the remedies proposed by the DoJ rather than accept what is 
in effect a political rather than a legal solution.
    Very truly yours,
    Craig R. Jungers
    Vice-President and Network Engineer
    Network Essentials, Ltd.
    2317 Lakeside Drive
    Moses Lake, WA 98837
    509-764-5007



MTC-00003779

From: Zipperhead Sunshine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make them pay cash not software.



MTC-00003780

From: Chris Dees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:49am
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement.'
    Hello,
    My name is Chris Dees, I would like to express my disappointment 
at the Department Of Justices` decision in the Microsoft Antitrust 
remedy. Microsoft was found guilty of operating an abusive monopoly, 
of what is arguably the most important industry to our nation`s 
future. No one aside from Microsoft, and apparently the DOJ, feels 
that this is a proper remedy; THE STATES THAT HAVE AGREED TO THIS 
SETTLEMENT HAVE GIVEN UP. With all due respect to the legal 
professionals and Judges involved in this matter, I implore you, 
reconsider your decision. My reason is the fact that the only people 
who seem to have understood the consequences of this remedy were 
from Microsoft. You obviously don`t understand the impact that this 
decision will have on the future of the high technology field. 
Microsoft MUST be held accountable for their actions, and this 
remedy DOES NOT.
    We are on the cusp of a revolution in our society. Microsoft 
realized this early on and due to several smart business decisions, 
and in no small part to the ignorance of the general populace, they 
have positioned themselves to hold more than their share of the 
marbles right now. The high tech industry, and especially the 
software segment is a totally different business model than any 
known industry. So different, in fact, that there is no only good 
analogy for it. That said, this case should have been handled 
accordingly, yet it was not. The advisors that the DOJ utilized, if 
any, were not as astute as Microsoft`s, and it shows.
    THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY`S EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON AN OPERATING 
SYSTEM! It is incredibly time and resource intensive to develop a 
new OS from scratch.
    That is why the field of operating systems is extremely narrow. 
This is also why we, as a public, have been suffering with a DOS 
based operating system for the better part of the last 10 years, 
this is how long it took Microsoft to write and improve their NT 
product to the point that it is fast, usable and stable. This is why 
Apple recently took the code base from FreeBSD Unix when reinventing 
it`s Mac OS. The fact that Microsoft has dominated the desktop 
operating system market, places them in the drivers seat for the 
software industry. They have to give a software manufacturer certain 
information before that company can write software that runs on 
Windows.
    Unfortunately Microsoft made the poor choice to abuse this 
commanding position and started doing things like using the 
licensing of such information as a carrot to keep software 
developers from writing software for any other OS or platform. I do 
fault Judge Penfield-Jackson for saying what he did outside of the 
courtroom, but his anger was not unfounded. He understood the 
enormity of Microsoft`s transgressions, and that their attitudes 
were that of indignance. This is what incensed Judge Penfield-
Jackson, the flippant expressions and dishonesty in his courtroom.
    Based on all the information, Microsoft was found guilty, not 
that most high tech professionals ever doubted that. Anything short 
of separating the Microsoft operating systems from ALL other 
Microsoft products seems a miscarriage of justice. I understand that 
due to Judge Penfield-Jackson`s conduct, a break-up looks like 
fodder for appeal, but ignoring what is the just and right for that 
reason, is worse. They also need to keep their operating system out 
of the schools, they should be donating MONEY ONLY, lest we further 
their monopoly into a segment which is currently dominated by Apple. 
LET THE SCHOOL DECIDE WHAT SOFTWARE THEY WANT TO USE, ESPECIALLY THE 
UNDERPRIVILEGED, AS THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE A CHOICE OTHERWISE.
    Another problem I`ve seen is in Section III(J)(2), it contains 
some very strong language

[[Page 24361]]

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, 
...'. Being as Microsoft`s biggest threat right now is from 
free and `Open Source' software developed by individuals 
who develop because they love it, namely the Linux Operating System. 
This section relieves Microsoft of the burden of acknowledging these 
companies and individual`s rights in the industry. Microsoft can`t 
understand these businesses, therefore they abhor them, I have a 
distinct feeling that this verbiage was not suggested by the DOJ. 
Please don`t follow their lead and shun what you don`t understand, 
find out about it, it`s a new thing, therefore you must learn how it 
works. I understand that Microsoft shouldn`t have to cater to every 
penny-ante out there, but the DOJ SHOULD DEFINE WHAT CRITERION ARE 
SET FOR THE `REASONABLE AUTHENTICITY, AND VIABILITY' OF 
A GIVEN BUSINESS, NOT MICROSOFT! A company or individual 
shouldn`t have to make money to be considered a business if 
they are willing to pay licensing fees and want to develop with 
Microsoft. At the very least Microsoft should be assigned more than 
3 watchdogs, and the people chosen should be very tough, yet fair 
and honest, like Mr. Steve Satchell. But who is to chose?
    The DOJ, no thanks, I think they've demonstrated how well 
they understand the matters at hand. I think the government either 
needs to tap some high tech professionals to form a Federal Advisory 
Board, or use their own senior hackers from the NSA or CIA to police 
Microsoft`s activities.
    Lastly, I simply ask once again that this crime not go 
unpunished, which is exactly what I and the overwhelming majority of 
high tech professionals feel has happened. Through ignorance, 
exhaustion, or some other unknown reason, a monopoly not only goes 
unpunished, but manages to actually strengthen their stranglehold on 
a vital industry, where is the justice in that? Believe it, it`s 
true!
    Sincerely,
    Chris Dees
    Systems Analyst
    Thornton, CO
    USA



MTC-00003781

From: Sean Bratnober
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I`m no legal expert, so excuse me if I may sound confused when I 
complain about the language in the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
disagree with this settlement for several reasons.
    First of all, I am uncomfortable with the fact that the 
settlement seems to be extending Microsoft`s monopoly power by 
having them donate their software to schools. Apple computer already 
has about half of this market from some of the estimates I`ve heard, 
and it seems this settlement will give them greater leverage in this 
market. In addition, it will also serve to shut out open source 
solutions like Linux in the field of education, where the lack of 
funds make it an incredible low-cost resource.
    This is absurd to me because education is an area where 
Microsoft`s competitors have a lot of leverage. I`m amazed that this 
settlement would jeopardize this.
    In addition, I`m astounded that they will be able to write off 
much of this penalty on their software. They are allowed to price 
their donated software at a similar cost to what they would cost 
consumers, and much of this inflated price has nothing to do with 
actual material production costs for distribution. I think a greater 
deal of the money they donate should be put into computer hardware.
    But overall I don`t agree with having them donate any of their 
software, especially under the conditions of this settlement, where 
the schools who receive the software will be forced to pay a steep 
licensing fee after five years of use. This seems not to benefit the 
schools but to lock them in as future consumers for Microsoft, which 
merely extends their monopoly.
    I think any settlement must provide real leverage to Microsoft`s 
competitors, which include Apple and those in the open source 
community.
    Their practices have, and sadly, still do try to shut out all 
their competition. Even today we see them bundling Windows Media 
Player with their operating system, allowing them to shut out their 
primary competitor in media viewers, Real Networks, in ways that 
loudly echo what they did to Netscape. Any solution to this problem 
must level the playing field and allow companies like Real Networks 
to compete. I feel one of the best ways to do this would be to open 
up their source code for viewing, as it would give competitors the 
opportunity to make their software perform just as powerfully as 
Microsoft`s.
    Another area of the settlement that concerns me is some of the 
language explaining how they can deal with non-profits. Basically, I 
think it`s absurd that they can refuse to provide information about 
or license API, documentation, or communications protocols to non-
profit groups (which is just another name for the open-source 
community) that don`t meet Microsoft`s criteria for business. This 
effectively kills a lot of the robust open-source applications like 
SAMBA and reduces competition.
    I understand that the open-source movement isn`t concerned with 
profit, but I actually believe it provides one of the best source of 
competition to Microsoft, and I believe that it is a place where 
competitors can realize profits. Much of what counts in the IT 
industry is the brainpower of those who develop and support 
solutions, and much of what has emerged from the open source 
movement has `greased the wheels' in the industry to 
allow for collaboration and powerful standards where they are 
needed. It is with open source tools that competitors have a more 
solid foundation to compete for profit and revenue with their own 
software.
    It is possible to use proprietary software in an open source 
environment, or in conjunction with open source tools, and as a 
student programmer I think it offers an much better environment for 
people like me to be an entrepreneur with my software than the 
environment Microsoft has created.
    It`s crucial that the Microsoft settlement doesn`t allow them to 
block out anything that`s open source, because if competitors like 
IBM are embracing things like Linux I think it`s clear that open 
source offers many powerful opportunities for others in the 
industry. Some people believe the open source movement is 
`the' threat to Microsoft`s monopoly power, and this 
settlement is a shameful farce that appears to extend that power.
    I also want to support Steve Satchell in his bid to be a part of 
the three-member oversight committee that will see that Microsoft 
cooperates with whatever settlement is ultimately passed.
    thank you,
    Sean Bratnober



MTC-00003782

From: Jason Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work as a computer and network technician for a small 
business. I would say 95+% of our customers are there because 
they`re using a Microsoft product which failed due to reliability or 
security issues. They`re using it simply because it came with their 
system, or their operating system. In each case, there are cheaper 
products, which provide vastly better reliability and security.
    I`m talking myself out of a job here, but it would be a great 
day if Microsoft stumbled and was forced to be competitive again.
    Jason Jackson



MTC-00003783

From: Carl E. Meece III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:16am
Subject: MS antitrust settlement
    I think Microsoft was let off way too easy. Microsoft should 
have been split, and not doing so will hurt consumers and industry 
alike. What does this settlement say to other companies who may use 
similar monopoly tactics in the future? It says, `Go ahead and 
use illegal monopoly tactics, the worst you`ll get is a slap on the 
wrist.' Sorry DOJ, but you really fudged this one.



MTC-00003784

From: David Levi Lindsay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like for Steve Satchell to be placed on the three-member 
committee stationed at Microsoft which ensures any agreements are 
enforced. He is qualified for the position and I believe will do his 
job well. Also, I do NOT want people from Microsoft to have any 
input or influence over who is appoined.



MTC-00003785

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:23am

[[Page 24362]]

Subject: settlement
12/10/2001
    Re: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to express my opinion concerning the settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft. Microsoft was ruled guilty of being 
an illegal monopoly by nine Judges. In the settlement agreement, I 
see nothing to punish them for their past acts. They have benefitted 
financially and by market share. The remedies need to address these 
issues.
    They are now a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars, 
some of which are ill-gotten gains. A monetary penalty of at least 
25 to 50 billion dollars would be in order.
    Their market share on the desktop computer is 90+ percent. Steps 
must be taken to to remedy this. A goal of 66 percent (2/3) or lower 
must be acheived. To even the playing field, all non-operationg 
system software made by Microsoft must be available to run on all 
other platforms. Since MS is discontinuing all non-Windows XP 
versions, these all need to be released to the public domain. The 
licensing needs to be changed to General Public License and all 
source code supplied. Thank you.
    Jim Lange



MTC-00003787

From: Nathanael W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft/Red Hat settlement
    I think Red Hat should be applauded for this. Before Red Hat`s 
idea_ Microsoft`s money goes into fewer computers and an 
investment into their own future, as the schools have to pay for the 
software after 5 years. After Red Hat_more computers, lifetime 
free software for the schools, no compounding of Microsoft`s 
monopoly.
    Nathanael W
    icicle@ozemail.com.au
    http://www.ozemail.com.au/�7Eicicle/
    ICQ Number: 47725421



MTC-00003788

From: Alex Lam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen about the proposed Microsoft 
Antitrust Settlement. It seems that Microsoft is receiving a 
`penalty' that not only fails to restrict them in a 
serious way, but even ends up protecting them against their major 
rivals. Microsoft is under no requirement to release it`s standards 
to society at large, but instead only to other `for 
profit' companies that are judged by a committee set up by 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has shown in the past that it has very little societal 
ethics. If given a position that they can take advantage of, I am 
sure that Microsoft will make use of every opportunity. We must 
restate the wording of this proposal to prevent Microsoft from 
turning the restrictions into an even stronger chokehold on the 
software industry.
    Sincerly,
    Alex Lam



MTC-00003789

From: Ian Danby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:54am
Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
    I strongly urge the Department of Justice to consider all 
proposals by the nine states who have not agreed to this settlement 
prior to acceptance by the court. The remedies suggested by the 
dissenting states seem to me to be a better remedy than the 
published Final Judgment. I am concerned that there is wording in 
the Final Judgment that can be used by Microsoft to follow the 
letter of the agreement without the spirit. For instance 
`timely manner' for disclosing information on new 
versions of the operating system. As someone who works in the 
software industry, I am convinced that that will come to mean a day 
or two before it is put into widespread use. Developers interfacing 
with the product need more advance notice. Also, I believe there are 
some loopholes with regard to Microsoft not revealing source code 
for almost every piece of middleware and server interaction.
    The dissenting states have pointed out problems in XP, which has 
been released after this Final Judgment was published. That alone 
convinces me that this settlement is not sufficient.
    Regards,
    Ann Danby



MTC-00003790

From: Frank Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should seriously consider the remarks that Mr. 
Cringely has published at: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html
    Regards,
    Frank Harper, TURBOMECA DSI/SIP
    e-mail: Frank.Harper@turbomeca.fr
    Tel: +33-559-12-50-00 poste 6620
    Fax: +33-559-12-59-71



MTC-00003791

From: john johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    I am writing with respect to the proposed settlement of the U.S. 
v. Microsoft case. I believe that this proposed settlement is so 
full of loopholes as to make a complete mockery of the fact that 
Microsoft was in fact found guilty of antitrust laws.
    Of particular concern to me is the wording in Section III(J)(2) 
and Section III(D). As you are undoubtedly aware of, Microsoft has 
recently become aware of the fact that `open source' 
software is a major threat to their growing monopoly control of the 
information infrastructure. Microsoft executives have publicly 
characterized open source software as: `viral', `a 
cancer upon society', and `un-American'. The 
wording of this proposal is carefully crafted as to allow Microsoft 
to transition from this absurd rhetoric to direct action against 
open source software.
    During the trial, Microsoft often stated that they were not 
guilty of wrongdoing, but rather they were only exercising their 
right to `innovate' for the good of the users of 
Microsoft software. This is ridiculous for many reasons, the least 
of which is that Microsoft is not a major innovator of technology. 
Microsoft excels at imitation, acquisition, funding, and crafting 
restrictive business agreements. (To be fair, Microsoft has 
contributed some valuable technical innovation, especially in the 
area of computer usability techniques.)
    On the other hand, over the last 20 plus years we have 
experienced an enormous outpouring of innovation centered around the 
Internet. The fuel for all of this innovation is the fact that the 
Internet is based on open non-restrictive protocols, (TCP/IP), and 
open source software. The key to this innovation is that the 
foundation of the Internet is in the public commons. If a large 
corporation, (such as Microsoft), developed the Internet, it 
wouldn`t be the Internet. It would resemble what transpires on the 
so called `public airwaves'. If given the chance, 
Microsoft would enthusiastically work on creating this kind of 
vision out of the Internet. The proposed settlement not only gives 
them the chance, but seems to encourage them.
    When I read the proposed settlement, I can clearly see the 
contribution of lawyers on the Microsoft payroll. Unfortunately, I 
can`t see the contribution of the lawyers on the taxpayer payroll, 
nor can I see evidence of lawyers working for the public good.
    Thank you for considering my input
    john johnston
    16515 Bryant Rd.
    Lake Oswego OR 97035
    (john@earacuity.org)



MTC-00003792

From: Tim Triche
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse,
    Please strike the anti-competitive, anti-nonprofit language from 
the proposed Microsoft settlement unless you wish to reward a 
convicted, guilty antitrust violator with greater economic and legal 
advantage. This perversion of justice is repulsive; *ANY* entity 
with a reasonable cause to petition Microsoft for documentation of 
their APIs and system calls MUST be given a means to fairly and 
effectively do so!
    Thank you.
    Timothy J. Triche
    1233 Maryland Ave. NE
    Washington, DC, 20002



MTC-00003793

From: Philip Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to make known my views on the proposed microsoft 
settlement. While the Microsoft legal team has done very poorly in 
their defence against criminal action, their expertise in contract 
law is unparallelled. Any type of conduct settlement is essentially 
a contract. Their skills in that area WILL result in them 
sidestepping any limitations put upon them to violate the spirit of 
anti-trust law in new and `innovative' ways.
    The last attempt at a conduct remedy should show this more than 
adequately.

[[Page 24363]]

 Microsoft has been truthful in one thing in their description of 
the case: This is indeed a `fast-moving industry'. A 
year in this business is like 5 in any other. Therefore, American 
business cannot afford another 4 years of watching Microsoft abuse 
the system, and another 4 on top of that for another round of legal 
action. The punishment for their past infringements must be swift, 
and not `open to interpretation'.
    The only remedy that fits these criteria is a structural breakup 
of Microsoft into separate business units that are forbidden to 
overlap in areas of commerce. Additionally, with all the new areas 
Microsoft is getting into these days, a mere two divisions may be 
inadequate to nullify their cross-market monopoly leverage. I shall 
not suggest a specific set of divisions, but I would like to point 
out that Microsoft is currently operating in the following areas:
Broadcast television (MSNBC)
Desktop Operating Systems
Server Operating Systems
Palmtop Operating Systems (WinCE)
Embedded Operating Systems (In children`s educational toys)
Internet connectivity (msn)
Appliance computing/internet connectivity (WebTV)
Business software
Entertainment software
Entertainment hardware platform (X-Box)
Entertainment hardware accessories (microsoft mouse, joystick, etc)
    There is barely a single facet of consumer-available electronics 
and software in which Microsoft does not have a hand in. In fact, I 
cannot think of a single one.



MTC-00003794

From: Jim Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let there be choice for the average software consumer!
    The home computer is a staple of modern life. People use their 
computers to communicate with each other, conduct business, 
research, and even for entertainment. Our society as a whole depends 
upon the home computer.
    I am a fan of windows 2000. It is an operating system that 
doesn`t crash very often. It is easy to use and has a lot of built 
in features. I understand Windows XP takes this to a new level.
    I am not against features in an operating system. They add to a 
users experience and the power of their computer. What I am against 
is the lack of competition that Microsoft faces. Admitedly they do a 
good job of innovating even when they hold a monopoly of the market. 
But imagine for a moment that two Windows XP caliber operating 
systems were being produced by two different companies, both vying 
to land on your desktop as a home user. Undoubtedly, prices would be 
lower to the consumer and features of the operating systems would 
become even better. Problems that today are overlooked would be 
given quick attention (such as some of the serious security holes 
that Microsoft rarely gives second thought to.) The consumer wins. 
It has been established that Microsoft uses the most aggressive 
tactics of anti-competitiveness available. If there is any way that 
they can take out a competitor, or assimilate them, they will. This 
only increases their monopoly, and decreases competition in the 
market place. I say this is unfair, and it is high time the 
government steps in and does something intelligent to remedy the 
situation. What action is called for I do not know. But something 
must be done! Although innovative in features and user-friendliness, 
Microsoft has a long standing history of serious security flaws that 
repeatedly appear in their products. So called `e-mail 
viruses' actually only affect people who use Microsoft`s 
Outlook Express mail reader. Why the media calls them `e-mail 
viruses' and not `Outlook viruses' I do not know.
    Why is Microsoft not held accountable when their mail program 
facilitates the spread of these so-called `email 
viruses?' I do not know. But I call for accountability. And I 
call for government intervention that there might be serious 
competition in the market place. All this so that your average 
consumer can have more than one good choice for a full featered 
operating system. Microsoft does not stand for the freedom of choice 
that capitalism offers as it`s benefit. Microsofts first interest is 
market dominance at all costs, and to them the consumers interests 
come second. More and more features of the home computer now fall 
under the power of this monopoly. The only good choice for Word 
Processing is Microsoft Word. The only good choice for web browsing 
is Internet Explorer. The only good choice for your operating system 
is Windows. This is how Microsoft wants it to be. Unfortunately for 
most people, this is how it is. No good and meaningful competition 
in the marketplace, no good alternative choice for the average 
consumer. Something must be done to remedy our situation as 
consumers, who for now must depend upon one company 
alone_Microsoft.
    The innovation and development of the home computer has come 
from many companies and still continues to come from many companies, 
such as AMD, Intel, IBM, Cyrix, Macintosh, HP and others. For a 
society which has reaped the benefits of computer hardware 
engineered competitively by many different businesses in the private 
sector, why must we reap the shallow benefits of software engineered 
by only one company?
    Please, as the government of this wonderful country, do 
something to protect our rights as consumers. Please do something to 
let there be choice and freedom in the software market. Please stop 
the company Microsoft that has shown it will at any cost try to 
destroy this choice and freedom for us, the consumers.
    Thank you sincerely,
    Jim Brown
    trusty_jim@hotmail.com
    CC:trusty_jim@hotmail.com@inetgw



MTC-00003795

From: Malcolm Stebbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:24am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement, and it does not address the 
primary legal finding of the court; that Microsoft uses predatory 
business practices to further its own ends which are to acquire and 
retain monopolistic control of the computer Operating System and 
Middleware software industry.
    In general, the settlement leaves the definition of elements 
such as which enterprises are legitimate or viable businesses, 
security, privacy, and the legitimacy of any claimed need for access 
to Microsoft`s code entirely up to Microsoft. Certainly the 
technical committee can review Microsoft`s decision, but so what? 
They review it, and two out of three of the committee members are 
beholden to Microsoft. Even if they cried `Foul', so 
what? What difference does that make? The last time the DoJ cried 
foul on Microsoft it took years of litigation and millions of 
dollars to get to this point where we are now, and Microsoft has 
used very trick and pressure it could to weaken the decision and 
remedies against its continued abuse of us, the consumers.
    This is not a matter of preserving a `healthy business 
climate', though Microsoft may phrase it as such, and issue 
dire warnings about the collapse of communications of all sorts if 
it is restrained. WE, the American people, are being screwed by a 
monopoly which considers a lie or a threat to be normal parts of 
doing business.
    I am not a computer whiz, but it is clear to me as well as to 
literally millions of other computer users that much of what is 
foisted off on us by the so-called `upgrades' to new 
versions of the Windows Operating System are just window-dressing. 
They often require new versions of Office, Excel, and the host of 
other programs on the market for yet more hundreds to thousands of 
dollars each. And I`m sure Microsoft points out how this 
`creates a need' and `keeps the economy 
healthy' but I`d rather `keep the economy healthy' 
buying something that I really wanted, like high speed internet 
access or a new program that actually does something for me.
    And what about all the freeware and shareware programmers; what 
about Linux, or BeOS? None of these can be called legitimate 
businesses_at least not by Microsoft, who, incidentally, 
claims that Linux `proves' Microsoft is not 
anticompetitive. Would anyone care to take a small side bet on what 
Microsoft will tell Linux programmers when someone asks for 
Microsoft`s code? After all, Linux isn`t a business, just a bunch of 
programmers who like to produce neat programs. Microsoft is not 
compelled to respond to mere programmers, who might irresponsibly 
disseminate or otherwise `misuse' Microsoft`s 
intellectual property. The record so far has shown that when a 
shareware or other program is worthwhile and popular, Microsoft 
simply buys it along with the rights to any remotely conceivable 
extension, and that`s the end of that. They can afford to pay 
incredible amounts for small items that might eventually threaten 
their ownership of the market_that`s what a monopoly is all 
about, isn`t it?

[[Page 24364]]

    I have questions regarding this whole antitrust decision 
process; why is Microsoft being relieved of any real restriction to 
it`s past modes of doing business? Why is it not being actually 
punished for its obvious and documented past misdeeds? Why isn`t the 
company being broken up or otherwise having its immense power 
reduced to protect us from its predatory and invasive abuse of 
American Citizens? Why is there no indemnity provided to be invoked 
against Microsoft for possible future transgression?
    Malcolm Stebbins



MTC-00003796

From: Amos Barrows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This deal will simply solidify Microsoft`s unfair monopoly. It 
does not represent the best, and certainly not the most intelligence 
deal that can be struck. And worst of all, it will furthur prevent 
people from actually having a fair choice when it comes to computers 
and software. Microsoft may give big campaign contribution, but that 
doesn`t give them the right to stiff the customer.



MTC-00003797

From: Aaron Luttman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings and Salutations,
    I am a mathematician by education, a computer programmer by 
trade, and a user of Microsoft products. I am also very much against 
the proposed department of justice settlement with Microsoft. As I 
said, I use Microsoft products, and that means that I will be among 
the first to gain if the department of justice takes a HARDER line 
with Microsoft. I use Microsoft products, because they are the best 
available for what I do. The reason that they are the best is not 
that they are good, but rather that Microsoft has destroyed any 
other company that might produce a better product.
    Rather than just complaining, though, I will actually present to 
you what I think is an important point to make. There is nothing you 
can do to change the current market dominance of Microsoft systems 
for personal computers. Moreover, a point that few seem to consider, 
is that it doesn`t matter that you can`t do anything about it. 
Microsoft knows you can`t do anything about, but they are scared 
anyway. You may not understand this, but Microsoft products as we 
know them, such as Windows (prior to XP) and Office, are going to be 
obsolete as concepts much sooner than you might guess. Microsoft 
knows this. They have some people there who are as technically 
astute as their lawyers are legally astute, and they know such 
software is going the way of the dodo.
    Then what is the problem? The problem is that Microsoft is being 
allowed to use its current to powers to conquer other industries. It 
is Microsoft`s Internet Information Server that is the problem. It 
is MSN and its partner Microsoft Passport that is the problem (and I 
won`t even get started on the civil liberties infringements of those 
products). It is X-Box that is the problem. It is an often-heard 
joke that Microsoft won`t stop until it has achieved total world 
domination. We laugh, because it is funny. We laugh, because it is, 
in some sense, true, at least in the technical world. Over the last 
couple of years, in particular, Microsoft has used its muscle to 
push its way into other technical areas of our lives, the same way 
Tony Soprano might expand his `territory.' This is the 
problem. This is what we need to be afraid of. This is what we, as 
consumers, need the department of justice to protect us from.
    Windows XP is the problem. It is not an operating system in the 
way that previous versions of Windows were, or the way that Linux 
is, or the way that MacOS is. These other operating systems are 
systems that basically manage the way that other programs use the 
memory of your computer. These systems keep track of which programs 
are using, or `own,' what memory. That is their primary 
function. Windows XP treats this as an aside. The main purpose of 
Windows XP is to act as a portal by which Microsoft can dominate the 
`cyber-life' of every person. It is not just a software 
that lives on a PC, but rather product for guiding users through the 
Microsoft vision of the internet.
    Forget about Microsoft`s dominance of the PC. It`s too late, and 
it doesn`t matter. It is not too late_ and it does 
matter_to stop Microsoft from pushing its way into dominance 
of other industries and other aspects of consumers` lives. This is 
where the DoJ needs to focus and make the tough decisions that are 
needed to prevent this.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Luttman



MTC-00003798

From: Brian Conte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider myself as someone who has reasonable knowledge and 
perspective on the relevant issues of this case. I worked for 
Microsoft for 5 years, and during that time worked with a number of 
ISVs working on applications for Microsoft Windows. I also ran my 
own software company, which developed Windows applications, for 10 
years. I have lived in Microsoft`s community (Redmond and Seattle) 
for 20 years.
    The settlement is a joke. It is little more than a slap on the 
wrist to a company that has continually and egregiously abused its 
monopoly power. It reads like it was drawn up by Microsoft lawyers 
and agreed to by a justice department more interested in a speedy 
resolution than an appropriate one. Knowing the dynamics of the 
software industry and Microsoft`s proven willingness to push the 
bounds of any imposed restrictions, I think that many of the 
`remedies' of this settlement actually hurt the software 
industry and help Microsoft, rather than vice versa. It is clear to 
me that the net result of this settlement will be only to allow 
Microsoft to continue to abuse its monopoly position, stifle 
creative competition, and ultimately hurt consumers.
    I can only hope that the nine remaining states do a better job 
than the justice department did at penalizing and restricting 
Microsoft in a way that will meaningfully protect consumers.
    Brian Conte



MTC-00003799

From: Pablo Oliva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
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 right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s 
don`t run Windows.'
    I 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

[[Page 24365]]

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
    P.S. I am sending a hard copy of this letter via regular mail. I 
eagerly await your response.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00003800

From: Vip Malixi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:35 am
Subject: Settlement will kill open-source competitors of Microsoft
    He`s Not in It for the Profit
    Steve Satchell for Microsoft Anti-Trust Compliance Committee
    By Robert X. Cringely
    Two calls came in on the same subject in the same day this week, 
but from very different perspectives. The first call was from a 
lawyer working for the California Attorney General. He was looking 
for somebody like me to testify in the remedy phase of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case. California, as you know, is one of nine states that 
have chosen not to go along with the proposed anti-trust settlement 
between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The nine 
states think Microsoft is getting off too easily. The second call 
came from Steve Satchell, an old friend from my InfoWorld days, who 
had noticed deep in the text of the proposed Microsoft/DoJ 
settlement that as part of the deal, there will be a three-member 
committee stationed at Microsoft to make sure the deal is enforced. 
Satch wants one of those jobs.
    I think he should get the position. With a background in 
computer hardware and software that dates back to one of the very 
first nodes on the Arpanet 30 years ago, Steve Satchell knows the 
technology. He has worked for several big computer companies, and 
even designed and built his own operating systems. And from his 
hundreds of published computer product reviews, he knows the 
commercial side of the industry. He is glib and confident, too, 
which might come in handy while attempting to keep Microsoft honest. 
Sometimes there is a distinct advantage to being the first to apply 
for a job, so I think Satch should be a shoo-in for one of those 
compliance gigs. And the boy looks mighty fine in a uniform.
    The job will be a challenge, that`s for sure. The committee has 
the responsibility of settling small disputes and gathering the 
information needed to prosecute big ones. They are supposed to have 
access to ALL Microsoft source code, and their powers are sweeping. 
If it goes through, I only hope the court picks three tough but fair 
folks like Satch.
    Meanwhile, there is still plenty to complain about in the text 
of the proposed settlement, itself. Those who followed the case 
closely will remember that one of Microsoft`s chief claims during 
the trial was that times and the nature of business have changed, 
and that anti-trust enforcement ought to be different today than it 
was when the laws were first passed in the early part of the last 
century. This is a fast-moving industry based on intellectual, 
rather than industrial, capital, goes the argument. Sure, Microsoft 
is on top today (and every day since it got bigger than Lotus around 
1986) but, hey, that could change in a Redmond minute. This argument 
evidently didn`t resonate with the court, though, since Microsoft 
was found guilty. Keep repeating to yourself: `Microsoft is 
guilty.'
    Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft`s 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before. 
Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final Judgement 
specifically protect companies in commerce_organizations in 
business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
`competing' commercial software vendors like Netscape, 
and other commercial vendors_computer vendors like Compaq, for 
example. The Department of Justice is used to working in this kind 
of economic world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that 
will rein in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft`s greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux_a non-
commercial product_and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. The 
biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server is 
Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don`t even exist.
    Section III(J) (2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business .... 
'
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft `middleware.' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there`s more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology_even the 
Department of Justice itself_have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don`t 
run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. Is the 
Department of Justice really that stupid? Yes and no. They showed 
through the case little understanding of how the software business 
really functions. But they are also complying with the law which, as 
Microsoft argued, may not be quite in sync with the market realities 
of today. In the days of Roosevelt and Taft, when these laws were 
first being enforced, the idea that truly free products could become 
a major force in any industry_well, it just would have seemed 
insane.
    This is far from over, though. The nine states are still in the 
fight and you can be, too, by exercising your right under the Tunney 
Act to comment on the proposed settlement. The Tunney Act procedures 
require the United States to:
    1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact 
Statement (CIS) with the court.
    2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal 
Register.
    3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected 
newspapers.
    4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after 
the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
    5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, 
in the Federal Register.
    6. File the comments received and responses to them with the 
court.
    To make your views known (and to put in a good word for Steve 
Satchell), there are several options:
    E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type `Microsoft 
Settlement.'
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 
1-202-616-9937
    Mail : Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

[[Page 24366]]



MTC-00003801

From: Rugbuz Pafnuti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:15 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement. There are 
several reasons to reject it:
    1. Economic: Microsoft is often perceived as a `driving 
power' of the economy. In fact, there are concerns that using 
strict anti-thrust laws against them could affect the economy as a 
whole. Mentioning the new `Windows XP', vendors hope 
that this release pushes sales of hardware, software and equipment. 
From an economic point of view, it would be very dangerous if a 
single company really had such an economic influence. If those 
concerns were true, that would indeed be THE SIGNAL that Microsoft 
is close to a monopoly and that the IT industry is already 
`ill' and has to be cured, which means that such a 
monopoly has to be removed.
    As within all countries featuring a `liberal economic 
system', government intervention has to be restricted to 
situations where the natural stability of markets fail.
    A monopoly (or more generally, when a single company affects the 
whole economy) causes the natural balance of markets to fail.
    Another important point of view is the customer and her 
interests. While Microsoft (naturally) denies having an all-economic 
influence, they do state that they are only `doing the best 
for their customers'. That assumes that customers were free in 
their decisions to use Microsoft products, and that the customers 
chose these products for their `technical advantage' 
over competing products.
    [A concern sometimes heard is, that `killing Microsoft 
would kill (or at least, slow down) technical development'. 
That statement has to be carefully analysed. First, Microsoft IS NOT 
the `engine of technical advancement'. Why should only 
Microsoft be commited to make things easier for the customer? Why 
should only Microsoft be commited to extend the borders of 
technology? IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle and others want to sell, 
too. It is inherent to a liberal free-market system, that you can 
only survive by adapting and improving. Advancement coming only from 
a single point out of the whole system in fact is characteristic for 
NON-FREE systems that do not rely on free markets, fair prices, 
freedom of trade, etc.
    Conclusion: if the above statement (`Microsoft is best for 
customers, dont take it away') really was true, then this 
would NOT be sign AGAINST using anti-trust laws, but it would be a 
sign PRO using these laws, PRO reassuring that our system of free 
markets is functioning well. To clarify my position: it is NOT the 
duty of the government to punish those who are successfully 
operating within our liberal free-market system. It actually IS the 
duty of the government, to ensure that the markets remain balanced, 
that there IS competition, that customers HAVE a choice, that no 
single company can control a market or (even worse) the whole 
economy. That cannot be and that must not be in the interest of any 
government.
    2. Technical: While you can state that there is no economic 
reason to punish Microsoft (despite my argumentation in the 
paragraph above), it actually is evident that Microsoft is not 
`playing fair' and at least trying to lock out 
competition for their products.
    As stated above, in a free-market system everyone is trying to 
gain competitive advantages and to extend ones share of the market. 
This is natural, and this is good from an economic point of view, as 
this is the real `engine' for technical advancements. 
However, to ensure that competition really remains free, governments 
have to make sure that certain rules are accepted and followed by 
the market participants. One of the most important rules is, that it 
must be possible to compete with someone. It must not be the case 
that someone `locks others out of the market'.
    If a segment of a market is controlled by a single company, and 
if that company is able to effectively lock others out of that 
segment, then we are here: that company effectively has a monopoly 
in that segment. To ensure this does not happen, market participants 
have to `play fair', and it is the duty of the 
government to punish those that do not obey the rules. Microsoft in 
fact is quite effectively locking others out of certain market 
segments, and they do everything to make sure that these segments 
remain `Microsoft-only'.
    1) the Windows internals are not open. Only Microsoft know about 
them, and treats them as a business secret. As a result, competitors 
have a significant disadvantage when developing applications for the 
Windows platform. While Microsoft has the ability to alter Windows 
to fit the needs of their applications (Office, SQL Server, Web 
Server, ...), they also have the ability to alter Windows to make 
existing applications incompatible with future versions of Windows!
    2) the Office document format internals are not open. 
Development of a competing office product, which would be fully 
capable of reading, writing and transforming MS-Office documents, is 
almost impossible. As the MS-Office format is close to a 
`defacto-standard' (resulting from a lack of choice by 
the customers!), this effectively kills free competition on the 
office market segment.
    3) the Windows file exchange and sharing mechanism is NOT 
documented. However, there actually IS competition, mainly from the 
open source community (`SAMBA' project). As Microsoft 
realized this, they recently changed communication internals within 
Windows XP (and earlier, also within Windows 2000 Server versions). 
The goal was clear: effectively stopp competition. However, the 
SAMBA project adapted quickly. Nevertheless, this should be a clear 
sign that Microsoft IS NOT PLAYING FAIR!
    Conclusion: IF positions as a market-leader really were 
`earned' (by offering better products then the 
competitors), then Microsoft would not fear competition. However, 
this is not the case. Microsoft is trying to integrate their 
products as closely as possible to lock out competition.
    When competition arises, product internals are changed. 
Microsoft, of course, can adapt to this. Others cannot, or can but 
only with huge efforts. This effectively hinders competition, and 
aims at gaining a monopoly (or at least a superior position) where 
customers (and the free-market) possibly would have decided to use 
other products.
    As a customer AND as someone interested in the future of our 
economy, I reject the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
US Department of Justice. I insist on reconsidering the effects of 
this settlement, especially in respect to Microsofts position and 
business practices they have shown.
    Sincerly,
    Rugbuz Pafnuti



MTC-00003802

From: Martin Fraser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:19 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writting to experss my opinion on the upcoming anti trust 
settlement between the Justice Department (DoJ) and Microsoft 
Corporation (MS). It has become known to me that through clever 
wording on the part of MS in the settlement aggreement may lead to 
the removal of the rights expressed in the agreement from the Open 
Source world.
    Since MS was found guilty of leveraging there dominant market 
position the settlement should be a punishment to them.
    In the current market the biggest and growing threat to MS 
buisness is from the Open Source world with GNU/Linux, Apache, 
Sendmail, BIND and PERL running most of the internet, MS`s latest 
target.
    By allowing MS to discriminate against such not-for-profit 
concerns, they could emerge from the anti-trust proceedings with the 
tools needed to crush thier biggest competetor, with the full 
backing of the DoJ. This could only lead to the strenthening of 
there monopoly and is counter to the spirit the settlement should be 
received in.
    I hope the DoJ have the foresight to realise this before it is 
too late and MS not only get away with they have already been found 
guilty of, but come out of these proceedings in a stronger position. 
This result can only harm consumers.
    Thank you.
    Martin D Fraser.



MTC-00003806

From: Alan Leiman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:21 am
Subject: to little
    From what I`ve been reading Microsoft is getting off pretty easy 
compared to what should be done. They are continuing to push others 
around and control us, the consumers. If they get off to easy they 
won`t stop. Look at there new product, i realize it wasn`t part of 
the case, but they are forcing people to use there email account for 
registration, and when you create that account you have to use there 
email client. You gotta put the foot down so they realize that some 
things can`t be done. And, that they have to leave the doors open 
for choice, and not use there muscle to push others around.



MTC-00003807

From: Fulton, Tim_BRP-LEX
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:30am

[[Page 24367]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    This is to lend my voice to those who want to see Microsoft hung 
out to dry. There is good reason why many refer to the company as 
M$. My experiences, though, are a little different.
    My company is an international manufacturer who has standardized 
on this company`s offerings. As one whose income relies on the 
ability to use them, I was a little distressed to learn that 
Microsoft would not support their product, not even for money.
    Because the operating system [OS] was preinstalled by the 
computer maker (in this case, Dell) Microsoft would not support it. 
OEM installations, they said, are the responsibility of the OEM.
    As this might be understandable in many cases where OEM 
installations may affect product quality, I tried to get Dell to 
support the installation. They, however, were not sufficiently 
trained on the details of the OS, and referred me back to M$.
    The point is, Microsoft is negligent in both aspects of this 
case. If Dell (or anyone having an agreement with M$ to distribute 
the product) is an authorized reseller, then it is the 
responsibility of the manufacturer (M$) to ensure the OEM is capable 
of providing support. If they cannot confer this technical 
capability to the OEM, then the duty lies with the manufacturer to 
support the installation.
    Because they successfully dodged such responsibility is why I am 
a lifelong hater of Microsoft. Please find against them, in the 
harshest way possible, for lacking the fortitude to back up their 
own product.
    Best regards,
    Tim Fulton, North American Database Publications
    Bosch Rexroth, Lexington KY USA
    `The Drive and Control Company'
    Tel. 859-254-8031 x.4521
    mailto:tim.fulton@boschrexroth-us.com



MTC-00003808

From: Michael Menary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:33am
Subject: DOJ Judgement
    I think it`s a travesty of justice that Microsoft has been 
allowed to get away with it. Basically, by bundling IE with Windows, 
it destroyed Netscape, and it is still trying to do that in 
surreptitious ways. (Check out its export facility, which does not 
sort the output, so Netscape importers get a mess, but IE importers 
get a sorted list).
    Companies that I have worked for have signed up for agreements 
to receive MS software, but have ended up having to buy PC`s with 
the software already bundled as the OEM`s have to install it. How 
does a company get away with this?
    Bill Gates must be laughing his head off at the way he has the 
US government wrapped around his little finger. It`s like he has 
received a slap on the wrist for multiple homicides because he pays 
the judge`s salary.
    Michael Menary



MTC-00003809

From: Mike Miller (Ramesys_Nottingham)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to register a comment on the proposed Microsoft 
Anti-trust case settlement. As the currently proposed settlement 
stands, I am concerned that regulation of Microsoft`s anti-
competitive activities excludes actions against non-profit 
organisations. A large proportion of the most promising alternatives 
to Microsoft software are developed by not-for-profit organisations, 
often under open-source licenses like the GPL (Gnu Public License). 
For example:
_The Linux operating system and many of it`s components
_The Apache web-server
_The Samba Windows network file sharing tools
_The Mozilla web browser
    These products provide strong alternatives to Microsoft`s 
offerings, yet because they are produced by non-profit 
organisations, the currently proposed settlement allows Microsoft to 
carry on with anti-competitive actions against these products.
    For the settlement to have any value in the current software 
marketplace, it must protect both normal commercial software and 
open-source or other not-for-profit developed solutions equally. 
Failing to address this issue will give Microsoft license to attempt 
to stifle the open-source software movement with anti-competitive 
practices in the same way that it has stifled commercial competitors 
in the past.
    Yours sincerely,
    Mike Miller
    Internet Consultant
    Ramesys e-Business Services Ltd.
    Email : Mike.Miller@ramesys.com www.ramesys.com



MTC-00003810

From: mconway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to object to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I have viewed the settlement, and I 
strongly feel that the proposal is deficient in several ways:
    It does not address Microsoft`s illegal behavior, and does 
little to prevent such actions in the future. Microsoft has already 
been found to be guilty of antitrust, AND in violation of a previous 
consent-decree. I have worked with Microsoft products virtually 
every day for the last ten years, I have followed DOJ issues with 
Microsoft, and it is my firm opinion that Microsoft will not stop 
its illegal and damaging behavior under the terms of this decree.
    The sharing of Microsoft source code is conditioned upon too 
many vague premises, and will be virtually unenforceable as it is 
currently written. I suspect that most of the language has been 
drafted by Microsoft`s counsel, and may contain many grounds for 
interpretation, delay and stalling. I am particularly concerned that 
Microsoft itself will be able to define who meets the criteria for 
viewing the source code.
    The settlement is too lenient and presents the appearance of 
impropriety, in that Microsoft has made sizeable and significant 
contributions to the current administration. The common perception 
among many members of the IT industry is that Microsoft is escaping 
with a `slap on the wrist,` and this impression will spread to 
the general public, further eroding confidence in our 
administration.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Conway



MTC-00003811

From: mac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I always thought that America was proud of it`s justice system 
but here I see a company that has been found guilty of killing 
innovation in the market by killing of the small guys and gets away 
with it. The present proposal will only widen Microsoft`s monopoly 
of the computer market. I don`t know how to solve a problem as big 
at this, I just know that this is not the way.
    Gerard
    PS One day in the future: `welcome to the whitehouse 
(R)'
    (R)_the whitehouse is a registered trademark of Microsoft 
corporation.



MTC-00003812

From: David Casti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
The settlement which has been proposed fails in many areas, 
including:
    1. Failure to punish Microsoft for past misdeeds in any way
    2. Failure to recognize the importance of noncommercial software
    3. Lack of `teeth' in the case Microsoft fails to 
abide by the settlement
    4. Failure to offer any forward-looking remedies
    Microsoft`s performance is on the record. This settlement will 
prove to be bad for consumers and bad for business. Please do not 
make this mistake. If this settlement is approved, it will be years 
before Microsoft`s illegal behavior can be addressed again in court.
    Sincerely,
    David Casti
    David Casti
    Managing Partner
    Neosynapse
    www.neosynapse.net



MTC-00003813

From: pjm@spe.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed resolution to the Microsoft anti-trust case will 
not accomplish the ostensible goal of increasing competition in the 
markets that Microsoft dominates. The primary problems are that the 
proposed solution allows Microsoft to spread its software into 
schools and that encouraging the use of Microsoft`s APIs will 
actually

[[Page 24368]]

 increase their ubiquity. A far better solution is to simply require 
Microsoft to provide the details of their proprietary file formats, 
thereby allowing real competition to arise.
    Allowing Microsoft to give software to schools must delight the 
Microsoft board of directors. Not only is Microsoft allowed to set 
the value of their donations, it is provided with access to an 
untapped market segment. This proposed solution will have the effect 
of training children in the use of Microsoft products, making it 
much more likely that they`ll choose to use them in the future. If 
the settlement is to include a donation to schools, Microsoft 
software should not be included in the package. Microsoft should 
provide the hardware bundled with Open Source software such as 
Linux.
    Requiring Microsoft to license its APIs will not result in 
greater competition. Microsoft`s operating system dominance is not 
due to the quality of its various versions of Windows, but to the 
fact that their business applications run primarily on Windows. 
These applications, including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, store 
their information in proprietary file formats. Companies and 
individuals cannot use alternative applications because they cannot 
read and write these formats. If the goal is to encourage 
competition on the desktop, forget about the APIs and require full 
public disclosure of all file formats used by all Microsoft products 
past, present, and future.
    The proposed remedy is going to cause far more harm than good. 
Please reconsider your actions.
    Regards,
    Patrick May



MTC-00003814

From: Yitzchak Gale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:59am
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
    I am Software Project Manager and Chief Architect of Biomedicom, 
Inc., a company that develops software for medical devices. The 
following represents my own personal opinion and does represent 
Biomedicom in any way.
    I am hereby submitting comments to the Proposed Final Judgement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, in accordance with the 
Tunney Act.
    There are major flaws in the Proposed Final Judgement that 
prevent it from being a remedy to Microsoft`s abuse of its 
monopolistic power in the software industry.
    Sections III(J)2 and III(D) of the Judgement provide non-
Microsoft entities access to proprietary Microsoft information. This 
information is critically important for being able to produce 
software that is compatible with existing Microsoft technologies 
currently exclusively controlled by Microsoft. However, the only 
entities that the Judgement empowers to receive such information are 
exclusively `business' or `commercial' 
entities.
    By implicitly exluding open source software developed under the 
auspices of non-profit organizations, the Judgement is strengthening 
rather than weakening Microsoft`s ability to abuse its monopoly 
power. The vast number of businesses, govenment agencies, and 
academic research groups that currently depend on one or more open 
source software packages will be even more vulnerable than before to 
Microsoft monopoly abuse if the Judgement is accepted in its current 
formulation.
    The Judgement must be changed to allow non-profit, government, 
and academic entities to access the proprietary information and use 
it in open source software. A mechanism must be provided through 
which these entities can reveal just that amount of information 
required to be compatible with open source and free software 
licenses currently in widespread use, such as the Free Software 
Foundation`s `General Public License'. This critical 
topic was completely overlooked in the Judgement. In addition, the 
Judgement gives Microsoft the power to decide which entities meet 
the eligibility criteria for gaining access to this information. 
This makes it easy for Microsoft to interpret the language a way 
that excludes its most important competitors. The Judgement must be 
changed to define more clearly which entities are entitled to 
receive proprietary information from Microsoft so that the large 
majority of reasonable applicants will be able to receive immediate 
approval without dispute.
    Furthermore, the wording of the Judgement appears to put the 
burden of proof on the entity requesting the information to show 
that it is eligible. That will lead to delays in receiving 
information that will devoid the information of most of its value 
given the fast-changing nature of the software industry. Even if the 
entity is given currently up-to-date information at the end of a 
long appeal process, the information will be not be useful if the 
product that required it is no longer relevant.
    Many software packages in extensive use are based on open 
source, and are developed by geographically disperse teams of 
developers under the auspices of non-profit organizations. Although 
these applications themselves are not developed for profit, many are 
essential to the operation of business, academic, and government 
entities that develop software themselves or are dependent on 
software.
    Some examples are:
_The Apache web server, the most widely-used software for 
Internet web sites, with Microsoft`s Internet Information Server in 
second place.
_The Linux operating system, an alternative to Microsoft 
Windows with over 5 million users according to estimates.
_The GNU C/C++ compiler, the second most widely used creator 
of software in the C and C++ programming languages, second to 
Microsoft`s Visual C++.
_The Perl programming lanuage, a widely used language for 
developing web sites, together with Microsoft`s VBScript Sun`s Java.
_The Mozilla web browser, which is the basis for the current 
Netscape and AOL browsers.
    There are hundreds of other important examples. Taken together, 
this group of software packages represents the single most important 
alternative to monolithic Microsoft-dominated software. For many 
software products, including those specifically mentioned above 
except Perl, there is no other product strong enough to compete with 
Microsoft even given full benefit of the remedies mentioned in the 
Judgement.
    Therefore, by excluding from the remedies the only viable 
alternatives to Microsoft products, and by removing Microsoft`s fear 
of future anti-trust action, the Judgement as currently formulated 
enables Microsoft to abuse its monopoly position even more than ever 
before.
    My contact information is as follows:
    Yitzchak Gale
    2200 Kerwin Rd. #309
    University Heights, Ohio 44118



MTC-00003815

From: Pablo El Vagabundo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:20am
Subject: Settlement will not help consumers
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a EU citizen and am appalled at the settlement that MS has 
brokered. This is a worldwide issue. I have been forced to use MS 
software against my will. I want options, i have paid good money to 
microsoft, which i would not have paid if there had been options.
    MS has destroyed all options.
    To counter this the new measures put forward by the nine states 
who rejected the settlement seem like they would address some of my 
concerns about MS`s bad practices.
    Yours.
    P



MTC-00003816

From: Grahame Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    Microsoft is a monoply. Allowing Microsoft to destribute their 
OS for free to under privileged schools will only perpetuate the 
monopoly. Microsoft stiffle competition. They build their products 
in such a way that no other vendor can interoperate correctly with 
their protocols. Even open protocols are changed in such a way that 
there is difficulty to operate with their products. MSIE and IIS are 
made to work together. In some cases no other web browser can 
interoperate correctly with IIS. For example, Microsoft Front Page 
exploits the correctness of Netscape where Front Page fails to close 
table tags correctly but MSIE is built to handle this. These are 
subtle but effective marketing ploys designed by MS to render the 
competition helpless. There are many examples of tricks like these 
employed by Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a law unto itself. End User License Agreements, OEM 
Licenses are restrictive and less than competative. For example, an 
OEM company cannot distribute a Computer with dual boot operating 
systems on it. Microsoft do not own the computer but they dictate 
that the OEM cannot distribute another Operating System on a PC that 
they manufacture.
    The solution for this Anti-Trust case should be to regulate the 
EULA and the OEM

[[Page 24369]]

Licenses. Giving freedom back to the manufacturer and to the end 
user.
    Microsoft is a monopoly. Therefore they should not be allowed to 
advertise or do exclusive deals so that companies that use Microsoft 
exclusively offering big discounts. Their products should have one 
price for all.
    Microsoft is a monopoly.
    Regards
    Grahame Jordan
    TheForce



MTC-00003817

From: Virginia DeBolt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:35am
Subject: The Microsoft Case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am concerned by what I am reading in the press about the 
decision in the Microsoft antitrust case. It appears that absolutely 
nothing is going to change in respect to the way Microsoft does 
business. It continues to be able to bundle web browsers and other 
application software into its operating system.
    Since the settlement applies only to products that were in use 
from 1995-98, it won`t stop Microsoft from repeating anti-
competitive practices with current and future products. The new 
Windows XP system is even more invasive and monopolistic than the 
products that were mentioned in the case. I urge you to enforce a 
decision in this case that will create a change in the situation and 
will force Microsoft to conduct business in a manner that allows 
free competition.
    Virginia DeBolt
    Pflugerville, Texas
    http://www.vdebolt.com
    New blog project: http://www.vdebolt.com/webteacher/



MTC-00003818

From: A. J. Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see Steve Satchell become one of the three-
member committee responsible for keeping watch over Microsoft.
    If Microsoft can control who has access to Windows` interface 
and API specifications, they can control what software can work with 
Windows. This limit extends to other computers that must network 
with the computer runnning Windows. Allowing sections III(J)(2) and 
III(D) would effectively allow Microsoft (who controls a majority of 
the desktop computers in the U.S.) to further limit their 
competition.
    Thank you,
    aj
    A. J. Wright 
    Systems Programmer/Analyst, UNIX Systems Group
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville 



MTC-00003819

From: lewis.jones@malvern.co.uk@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:40am
Subject: Renata B. Hesse
    Renata B. Hesse
    The primary mechanism that Microsoft has used to prevent users 
from being able to choose better products is their control over 
Application Data File Formats. The inablility of other software 
vendors to read MSWord generated files forces them to buy MSWord to 
read



MTC-00003820

From: Judah Diament
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I find the Microsoft settlement unsatisfactory on a number of 
counts.
    1) As long as Microsoft can bundle more applications with its 
operating system, it can easily kill competitors, as it did 
Netscape. There must be a ban on Microsoft bundling appliaction 
software with the operating system to insure a fair competitive 
environment
    2) It is wildly unrealistic to assume that the government will 
be able to monitor and regulate Microsoft`s behavior in a way that 
will not simply be a game of catch-up, with Microsoft always having 
enough time to hurt competitors before the governemtn steps in to 
stop it
    3) There is an excellent article from Robert Cringley (http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html) which shows how the 
current language of the settlement would allow Microsoft to kill 
Linux and open internet standards, which are it`s main competition 
today We can not allow one company to have a strangle hold on 
technology, since technology`s role in everyone`s life and in the 
government is only going to increase. With the release of the XBox 
and WindowsXP, Microsoft is moving beyond the dekstop and extending 
its control to the internet and hoem entertainment. If allowed to 
continue unchecked, Microsoft will have greater control over our 
lives than the federal government.
    Sincerely,
    Judah Diament



MTC-00003821

From: Sessoms, Mack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am appalled at this ruling. It appears that the DOJ has become 
as ethically bankrupt as many other institutions have become. This 
sends a message to future generations that it is okay to have zero 
integrity. As an American, I am ashamed to be grouped in with people 
like you.



MTC-00003822

From: John Talbot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata,
    The opinion that I relegate may not impact your decision since I 
am a Canadian citizen. The case for which you are deciding has far 
greater impact than just your borders, so as see it my thoughts on 
the matter are quite important.
    My background is very technical, working in firmware design for 
Nortel. For those not in the business this would be equivalent to 
the BIOS of PC`s. Extremely low level. I`d like to also point out 
that these are my opinions and not my employer and should not in any 
way be construed as such.
    I`ve been following the Microsoft antitrust case for some time. 
It is very clear to me that Microsoft was in fact guilty of 
monopolistic activities and was indeed found guilty in such matters. 
Since the early days of Windows trying to shut out Dr. DOS, these 
practices continue today. Detailed in the court trial are 
Microsoft`s attempts to shut out Netscape, but they hardly touch on 
Windows XP trying to shut out AOL`s instant messenger; proving that 
the court`s time has been nothing more than a rouse to stall for 
time so that Microsoft can further more extend it`s monopoly.
    My background dictates that there is a clear distinction between 
operating system and applications and is founded on decades of 
experience. The only viable solution to stop Microsoft from 
capitalizing on others ideas due to their dominance of the WinPC 
architecture and sure abundance of funds is to proceed with the 
original conclusions by breaking up the company into at least two 
parts, that of platform/OS and applications. No longer could 
Microsoft bundle their own spin of an application with their next 
generation of operating system to systematically wipe out a 
competitors product.
    Failure to do so now will make it more than impossible in the 
future as I believe that there can only be one David to slew such a 
goliath.
    John Talbot
    CC:bob@cringely.com@inetgw



MTC-00003823

From: james@becnel.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Try to buy a computer today. Think you can find one that`s not 
got Windows on it? Try telling Dell you don`t need an operating 
system on the computer, that you will install one of your choice. 
The salesman will have none of that. The only way to get the freedom 
of choosing my own OS is buying a much more expensive model. This is 
a form of economic discrimination, IMHO. And anyway, I already own a 
copy of Windows 98. Why should I be required to buy another copy 
when I already own a copy of Windows? I am being charged $200 for a 
OEM version of XP. I think this should be apart of the settlement as 
well. If I don`t want their OS or their custom software, I shouldn`t 
have to pay for it. The computer comes with other applications that 
I have no choice but to purchase. Most of these other applications 
are also MS products. Why do I have to pay for a copy of MS Office, 
when I would use Star Office?
    That`s like buying a TV and being told I am required to purchase 
a cable hookup, right on the spot with their pre-agreed upon cable 
provider. I have no choice, other than not buying the TV.

[[Page 24370]]

    James Becnel



MTC-00003824

From: Jeff Shelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opinion that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement will do little to effect, in a positive manner, 
Microsoft`s behavior. While breakup of the company may not be the 
best solution, neither would it appear that a solution at the 
extreme opposite end of the spectrum provide the best remedy either. 
I would urge you to persue options that leave Microsoft largely 
intact but not unscathed. The ability for Microsoft to use it`s 
current embrace/extend/destroy strategy should be limited. I would 
suggest that Microsoft be required to fairly take part in the 
commonly accepted standards practices that are used by the computer 
industry. If Microsoft were not allowed to accept standards 
piecemeal there would be greater interoperablity in products which 
would allow users to pick and chose products that provide the best 
fit for their needs. As it is currently, Microsoft does not allow 
other products to compete on a level field, reducing consumer 
choice.
    Jeff Shelly
    TouchNet Information Systems
    15520 College Boulevard
    Lenexa, KS 66219
    jshelly@touchnet.com
    913-599-6699
    913-599-5588 (FAX)



MTC-00003825

From: Fridy, Joseph M.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have made my living writing software for the last 20 years. I 
would like to comment on the Microsoft settlement.
    The success or failure of the settlement will entirely rest on 
its success in opening access to Microsoft`s file formats and 
protocols. These formats and protocols, which due to Microsoft`s 
prominence have become ubiquitous, need to be accessible to anyone 
who wants to write to them. Not just Microsoft`s supposed market 
rivals, but also non-profits (e.g. apache.org, perl.com, samba.org 
and the FSF), and indeed every crazed coder that has a good idea. By 
its monopolistic position, Microsoft has established its file 
formats and protocols as infrastructure. Computer network 
infrastructure *must* present open interfaces, to allow people to 
write new capabilities that fit into old infrastructures. For the 
duration of the consent agreement, public specifications of the 
current, formats of .doc, .ppt, .xls .etc files should be regularly 
published, along with the complete details on the current version of 
SMB, and indeed what is planned for the next version of SMB, .doc 
files, etc.
    If this is done, I don`t care if a single line of Microsoft code 
is revealed. The needs of those who want to actually innovate (as 
opposed to those who want to control innovation for the sole purpose 
of increasing their profits) will have been served. If this is not 
done, then all will have been for naught. Microsoft will continue to 
leverage their position as a de facto supplier of infrastructure to 
distort the software economy in their favor.
    Thank you,
    Joseph M. Fridy
    137 School Road
    Pittsburgh, PA 15239
    CC:Zidian John L.,Lippert Kenneth B.,Vemuri K. Rao,Ha...



MTC-00003826

From: jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a consumer and have been harmed directly by Microsoft`s 
illegal business practices. My hope that Microsoft will be prevented 
from continuing to flaunt the laws of this nation has been severely 
diminished due to the recent shift in the position of the Department 
of Justice, as seen in the proposed settlement. Some facts seem to 
have eluded the present U. S. vs. Microsoft representatives for the 
Department of Justice. First, Microsoft has been found to be a 
monopoly, both by the original judge, and unanimously by the 
appellate court. Second, Microsoft has been found to have illegally 
manipulated its monopoly position through anticompetitive business 
practices. In short, the DOJ case was successful, and in simple 
language, Microsoft lost. The proposed settlement seems to set aside 
these basic facts by handing Microsoft not a punitive outcome, but a 
`warning ticket'.
    Some of us among the U. S. citizenry expect those who break the 
law and defy the authority of the judicial system to be punished. We 
expect the Department of Justice to live up to its title, and those 
who sit in judgement to fulfill the charge to treat violators of the 
public trust, as defined by legislation duly enacted and upheld by 
the courts, as such.
    Letting Microsoft off with little more than a token judgement, 
with no other anticipated penalties than the mere extension of the 
warning for an additional two years makes a mockery of the effort 
and expense of the prosecution, to say nothing of respect for the 
rule of law.
    Microsoft has blatently defied the prior consent decree, and 
will do so again. Microsoft has willfully submitted false evidence, 
changed its story to suit itself, and obfuscated common sense, not 
only in marketing slogans, but under oath during judicial 
proceedings.
    The only way to compel Microsoft to cease taking illegal 
advantage of its monopoly position is to end the monopoly. Microsoft 
is not above the law. This nation is not founded on special 
treatment and double standards. The buck stops at the judicial 
level, for that is the only branch of government that can be 
considered remotely immune from the influence of political 
machinations. It seems that the only possibility of changing the 
direction of this case is in your hands. Consider the law, consider 
the precedents and findings, but most of all consider the nature of 
the monopolist, and its unrepenting tendency to disregard all 
ethical responsibilities. Finally, consider what measures will be 
neccesary for successful enforcement.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Gerald E. Spicklemire
    1402 Wolf Circle
    Indianap[olis IN 46229
    (317) 894-8840
    CC:jerry@spicklemire.com@inetgw



MTC-00003827

From: John H. Spicer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is not sufficient for it 
fails to take meaningful action to eliminate Microsoft`s monopoly in 
operating systems and application software.
    Microsoft uses its dominance in applications to retain its 
monopoly in operating systems. A competing operating system must 
overcome the limitation that programs like Microsoft Office are not 
available. Either Microsoft should be required to make their 
software available on other operating systems, or they should be 
required to license the software to vendors that will make it 
available on other operating systems.
    Until there is competition in both operating systems and 
applications, Microsoft should be considered a monopoly and should 
be excluded from entering new markets (e.g., they should not be able 
to produce products like the X-box) just as AT&T was prohibited 
from entering other markets until they divested parts of their 
business.



MTC-00003828

From: Nathaniel.Wharton@chase.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Hello,
    I`ve read this Robert X. Cringely`s article on the Microsoft 
case: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html And 
agree with his views. Just wanted to add my support.
    Sincerely,
    Nat Wharton
    New York City



MTC-00003829

From: Jason Mott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I want to express my discontent with the currently proposed 
solution to Microsoft`s conviction.
    If one company owns an entire industry, that industry can`t help 
but suffer at the hands of restricted growth. The independent spirit 
of the individual would-be entrepreneur is what plants the seed of

[[Page 24371]]

innovation_not a huge company that wants to control 
everything. Microsoft is a convicted monopolists, my industry will 
suffer if they are not stopped. Since the conviction is final, the 
punishment must stop them in their tracks, or our industry will 
never allow an aspiring inventor to make a difference unless 
Microsoft owns that difference.
    Please open up the door for all Americans to compete in this 
industry, or we`ll take our ideas to other countries_and they 
might be able to produce more innovative products than America 
because their people are free to do so without Microsoft`s 
permission.
    Fair competition is the American way. Microsoft does not respect 
fair competition. Things will get much worse if they are not stopped 
by an outside force.
    One quick anecdote. Watch the movie Tucker. It`s about a guy who 
wanted start his own Auto company, and what some very powerfull Auto 
companies did to stop him. Even *he* ended up in court on trumped up 
charges. In his closing argument he makes a claim that if the big 
car companies are allowed to do this, we`ll all be buying Japanease 
cars someday. Everyone laughed, as this was during the World War II 
era. Nobody is laughing now, and many of us are buying Japanease 
cars (including myself).
    Give America a chance to stay competitive in the Tech industry.
    For my final word, I`d like to express my complete agreement 
with Robert X. Cringely`s article on the subject: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    J. Jason Mott, Applications Developer



MTC-00003830

From: Jena Benecke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my views regarding the Microsoft 
settlement case. I read an article about this case at http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html where Microsoft`s 
remedies were commented in detail. My opinion is that if Microsoft 
were allowed to carry on business under these obligations, it would 
receive a perfect opportunity to kill of, or rather slowly strangle, 
its single most important competitor. I think this competitor is 
vital to the continuity of the Internet and IT industry, and I would 
like you to reconsider the obligations for Microsoft to continue 
business.
    This might be a little lengthy, but I have taken a lot of time 
writing this (over 2 hours) and I would appreciate if you read it 
entirely.
    Thank you in advance!
    The settlement imposes some actions on Microsoft that it needs 
to disclose APIs, programming information and source code to 
competing *companies*_ but it leaves the definition of what a 
company *is* to Microsoft itself.
    With this requirement, Microsoft can effectively refuse 
information about their systems (perhaps even what is now published 
to everybody) to all entities that are NOT a company, e.g. projects 
that are driven by hobbyists and only supported and distributed 
(partly) by companies.
    I am talking primarily about Open Source software projects. This 
settlement endangers Open Source software. And most people, frankly, 
have no idea how dependant they are on it_which is a good 
thing.
    1) Why is Open Source software important?
    Ordinarily, in the business world Microsoft would use standard 
commercial tactics to kill or crush a promising (read: dangerous) 
upstart company. They would sue over some non-issue and make them go 
bankrupt over the court costs, just buy them out or simply change 
their products so they become incompatible with the rest of the 
world (again).
    Open Source software, of which projects like Apache, Samba, and 
Linux are the most prominent examples, forces Microsoft to play fair 
in order to participate. You cannot sue a project whose 10,000s of 
developers are spread throughout the globe, connected only by e-
mail. You cannot buy out a company because these people don`t work 
for a company, they do it in their free time. You cannot just take 
away their source code and use it yourself because the only licence 
that allows distribution also FORCES you to publish all your 
changes, and allow all your customers the same license.
    (Microsoft tried, though: In 1998, they silently offered Linus 
Torvalds $1,000,000 if he were to work for Microsoft (and 
discontinue/hand over Linux). Linus replied he didn`t even own 1% of 
the source code, and to take over Linux Microsoft would have to 
create seperate contracts with some 500,000 developers around the 
globe, each of which contributed some piece of code to the Linux 
operating system.)
    Microsoft`s licenses are based on _taking_ 
_away_ rights: you are not even allowed to install a 
copy of Windows on a new computer when you discard your old one. 
Licenses like the GPL are based on _freedom_: You can 
do everything you want with the software (which you couldn`t do 
under normal copyright), as long as you credit everyone whose work 
you are basing yours on, and publish your additions or improvements 
at least as freely as the original was.
    CONCLUSION: Open Source software makes companies watch their 
honesty. If they are honest, and contribute to the people, they can 
share the giant mind pool that is Open Source, and gain a huge 
advantage. Open Source makes it hard for businesses to earn money by 
screwing their customers. This is very important.
    2) What does this mean for the Internet?
    Open Source, or rather its predecessors, basically created the 
culture around the Internet as we know it today: UNIX was (and still 
is) not only an operating system, it is an intellectual culture, 
where research thrives and which at the same time holds the internet 
together. It is no wonder that OSS projects like Apache, BIND, 
Sendmail and so on basically `own' the 
Internet_Microsoft`s products, like IIS, Windows 2000 etc. 
(now called `petri dish software' by some IT experts 
because of the number of recent virus attacks, security holes and 
weaknesses) have never managed to get a real hold onto the Internet, 
simply because they lack the culture, not to mention they are 
technically inferior.
    Open Source keeps the Internet the place it was: an open 
environment, inviting everybody to participate, and allowing 
everybody to integrate their services (whether professional, 
commercial, or hobby) into the `net.
    The alternative is what Microsoft is trying to push: a closed, 
commercial environment, where Microsoft`s services decide whether 
you get access to ANYTHING [see Hotmail, Passport, etc], where 
Microsoft`s products kill compatbility, extending open standards 
with proprietary extensions [Kerberos, HTTP,...] so that 
competitors` products fail, and where in order to be 
`compatible' you have to use those standards that 
Microsoft forces into the market_no matter if they are an 
improvement or more like a `Verschlimmbesserung'.
    I think the Internet is far too valuable a resource to be 
restricted and perhaps destroyed by commerce, and_who 
knows_maybe the next generation`s Einstein is right now 
setting up his first Geocities home page? Isn`t the heap of crap 
that you CAN find on the `net nowadays WORTH the occasional super 
genius project?
    CONCLUSION: Open Source software provides an environment where 
EVERYBODY can partitipate, not just those with a big purse, or the 
right business connections.
    3) Open Source _drastically_ lowers the cost of 
entry for new companies This has been elaborated in an article on 
the Web, I`ve commented it a little and emphasized the important 
points (note for the article: wording is the original authors, 
emphasis is mine). Please have a look at http://
slash.jensbenecke.de/article.php3?story_id=45 for more 
information. Cost reduction is also very important, for just about 
every industry.
    I sincerely hope that Microsoft will continue to be allowed to 
do fair and only fair business and create quality products without 
artificial restraints, but I expect the government to actively 
regulate MS`s influence on the rest of the world. This might be a 
little sarcastic, but if Microsoft is allowed to continue to extend 
their strangle hold on the industry like it did in the past, we 
might be much nearer a scenario like this http://www.jensbenecke.de/
ms/ms-guidance-software.jpg or this http://www.jensbenecke.de/ms/ms-
wd2k.png than we think.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Jens Benecke
    Leiter Technik/Administration
    hitchhikers.de
    http://www.hitchhikers.de_Europas Mitfahrzentrale



MTC-00003831

From: Unixservice Support
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Please don`t let Microsoft destroy their only real competitor: 
LINUX and open source software.

[[Page 24372]]

    Make sure that Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Linux and GNU are all 
recognized as `businesses.'
    Please support the rights of U.S. citizens to innovate.
    Thank you,
    Gary Wallis
    Unixservice Support Staff



MTC-00003832

From: Hihn Jason
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    After reviewing documents on this matter, I am concerned about 
the lack of impact the settlement would have on non-commercial 
software.
    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,...'
    Should be modified by replacing `business' with 
`organization.' Furthermore it is unconscionable that 
Microsoft be able to pick it`s competition.
    Microsoft`s biggest competitors are now `open-
source' projects. Linux competes with them more than any other 
OS and is next to windows in volume growth. Apache still runs \1/2\ 
the internet and IIS runs the other half.
    OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice compete with Microsoft Office 
and all three are open-source (But StarOffice is run by Sun.) 
Allowing Microsoft to exclude its biggest competitor, the open-
source movement, makes this antitrust arrangement completely 
worthless.
    Personally, I think Microsoft should be barred from creating 
software and the operating system for that software. I think 
Microsoft should be made to use BSD or Linux. If Microsoft really is 
behind standards & compliance, then one of these two would be a 
great choice. It would enable Microsoft to ship applications for 
many more machines than they currently support (x86 
architecture only.) By using one of these two (but taking note that 
Linux works on many kinds of CPU architectures (ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, 
x86, H8, SPARC, etc)) they would be able to have a much larger 
market, but they also would be stripped of any kind of OS/
Application integration (aka. `monopoly') practices. It 
is also my understanding that Microsoft makes very little money on 
the OS (or at least up until this year when they re-structured their 
licensing.) I think this arrangement would be a win for all.
    Please change the aforementioned section so that Microsoft 
cannot discriminate against it`s biggest competition 
ever_open-source.



MTC-00003833

From: hubner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:29am
Subject: Spreading a criminalistic companies software is wrong.
    Dear Sirs,
    Please do not allow a company we are supposed to stop from being 
a Monopoly from spreading its Monopolistic Software as Punishment.
    THAT IS LUDICROUS> THAT IS CRAZY This company is thumbing its 
nose at our Justice System. You are empowered to STOP this from 
happening.
    Bill Hubner
    Linux User
    Office Manager



MTC-00003834

From: Jeff Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not sufficiently punish 
the company for their guilt. There is little or no incremental cost 
for a software company to give away their own software, especially 
when that software is given into a market in which their monopoly is 
the weakest.
    The settlement should not involve ANY free products.



MTC-00003835

From: Joe Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would just like to make a public comment regarding the 
settlement currently being considered in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case.
    Specifically, I have strong sentiment against some language of 
the settlement regarding the latitude with which Microsoft will be 
able to interact with business partners. Section III(J)(2) contains 
some very strong language against not-for-profits. The language of 
the this section says that it [Microsoft] need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don`t meet 
Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'
    Knowing how Microsoft has taken advantage of legalese in the 
past, I have no doubt that Microsoft could use this part of the 
settlement to treat Open Source software groups as veritable non-
entities, locking them out of interacting with Microsoft`s desktop 
monopoly. This would include groups which provide very prevalent 
software such as the Apache web server, the Perl programming 
language, and the Sendmail mail application. These items provide the 
backbone of the Internet as we know it, and also provide a very 
real, usable alternative to Microsoft`s monopoly.
    I strongly urge that the settlement not be allowed to pass in 
its current state. Vague language will allow Microsoft to morph the 
settlement into a tool for their own devices as they have done with 
past settlements. Let us not forget that Microsoft is guilty of 
misusing its monopoly power. Passing a settlement that might 
actually serve to further Microsoft`s monopolistic behavior does not 
make very much sense.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Kaufman
    sutekh@dwx.com



MTC-00003836

From: shannonpetry@netscape.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:40am
Subject: Sir/Madam,
    Sir/Madam,
    It is a sad day when the money grubbing software giant Microsoft 
can tell the world on television how the government is mistreating 
them! Here we are, the Americal public, forced to pay for Microsofts 
operating system with every PC purchased from any respectable 
vendor. This is even if we use opensource products like Linux, and 
discard the Microsoft products.
    I am sure that Microsoft is happy with the settlement, because 
it does not punish them at all. The just punishment would to remove 
the monopoly, which can only be done by spliting up the company as 
originally proposed.
    Microsoft ensures it`s monopoly by not porting it popular 
applications, like Word, Excel, and other office products to any 
operating system other than Microsoft Windows. Businesses understand 
this, and therfore can not change operating systems to Linux, 
Solaris, or the like for the simple fact that their data would be 
useless to them. Forcing the Microsofts applications to run on 
operating systems like Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, and others would 
remove the dependancy Microsoft has forced on all consumers.
    I sincerely hope that the US Department of Justice will not bend 
to Microsoft`s slanderous advertisements. I sincerely pray that the 
US Department of Justice will break the giant into respective pieces 
and free the Personal Computers of America from the Monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Shannon Petry
    Systems Engineer



MTC-00003837

From: Christopher Durfy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement_UNFAIR!
    Hello,
    I am contacting you to express my outrage if the terms of the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    By exclusively placing their software in our schools, we are 
teaching them MICROSOFT.
    I find the decision to be more of a long term marketing scheme 
in FAVOR of Microsoft.
    This `settlement' actually will strengthen their 
monopolistic position. Please rethink this settlement out. Do the 
right thing!
    C. Durfy
    Cincinnati, OH



MTC-00003838

From: Nicolas_Turk@learningtree.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A stronger settlement is necessary to break the backs of those 
greedy bastards.

[[Page 24373]]



MTC-00003839

From: John Hermes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Comments Reviewer,
    As a software professional responsible for the IT infrastructure 
for a small company and several external clients, I can say that I 
was truly stunned by the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I want to 
relate my deep concerns, and how I have been affected by Microsoft`s 
behavior over the last decade.
    I have personally experienced the effects of unreasonable 
burdens caused by Microsoft`s policies to not just compete, but 
instead remove competitors from the marketplace by any means 
necessary.
    For several years as a former user of OS/2, I witnessed how IBM, 
a legal licensee of the Windows OS, repeatedly accomodated 
Microsoft`s changes to their APIs, only to have new 
incompatibilities introduced through new features including Win32s 
and FAT32. Wherever Microsoft had options when designing a new 
feature, I watched them choose whatever method that most negatively 
impacted compatibility with rivals. It was so obvious to those of us 
who develop software for a living. You see, I counted on OS/2 for 
the ability to develop Windows software in one session, while 
testing in another. This enhanced my productivity then, because a 
crashed program on a Windows box required a complete reboot (and 
lost time and data), but under OS/2, the separate development 
environment (running Windows tools and compilers) remained stable 
and available.
    Now the company I work for depends on Open Source operating 
systems for serving our needs. Certainly, we have Windows clients, 
but up to now the Open Source projects have been able to remain 
wire- compatible, even as Microsoft tries to corrupt standard 
protocols like Kerberos and SMB/CIFS.
    The language of the proposed settlement disturbs me, because 
Microsoft has introduced language which completely discounts 
`non- business' entities which perfectly describe Open 
Source projects and operating systems. Open Source has grown so 
rapidly in part as a response to Microsoft`s offerings, in order to 
provide an alternative to their products. These alternatives are 
sorely needed, as highlighted by the high costs and constant 
security problems in Windows software. I fear this settlement 
language is deliberate, and will be used to undermine or destroy 
volunteer efforts to provide needed computer solutions where 
commercial alternatives are not sufficient or do not exist.
    Going forward, Microsoft is applying their dominance to the 
Internet through their new .NET initiative. If they are successful 
in chaining free and open network protocols to their propriatary 
platform, those of us most interested in interoperability and open 
standards will suffer most. Please reconsider the settlement and 
remove language hostile to non-business entities. Microsoft is a 
monoloply. Please don`t allow them to continue to act like one.
    Very truly yours,
    John S. Hermes
    Principal Systems Engineer
    Infoglobe, Inc
    1 Edmund St
    Dayton, OH 45404
    John Hermes
    Systems Engineer
    Infoglobe, Inc



MTC-00003840

From: Scott Slack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Here is my proposal for a settlment in this case:
    Cause all source-code for Microsoft Windows consumer operating 
systems (including desktop, handheld, and tablet), and Microsoft 
Office Professional to enter the public domain after 3.5 years.
    This would not diminish the `freedom to innovate', 
but would rather encourage innovation. Microsoft would then be 
required to compete with itself.
    I am against any settment that is proposed by Microsoft. They 
are smart, and would find ways to continue to leverage their illegal 
monopoly power, inspite of the proposed settlement. In addition, 
what were the penalties of breaking the previous consent decree? Has 
there been any restitution for those injured by Microsoft`s illegal 
behavior? By the way, a large fine is nothing to the worlds most 
powerful software company. Us users end up paying for it, anyway, 
because...they have a monopoly on desk-top operating systems. And 
giving away software is equally absurd, because it can be produced 
at virtually no cost to Microsoft, and it only destroys the market 
for legitimate legal commercial and non-commercial concerns.
    _Scott



MTC-00003841

From: Tim Bithoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I do not like the proposed settlement at all, it gives NO rights 
to the Open Source community who in fact wrote most of the software 
that makes up the internet today! Without Open Source we would have 
never had a web server, a mail server a web browser or CGI!!!
    Microsoft has used there tactics long enough to squeeze out the 
competition... Its a far inferior product but because it got some 
early footholds in the industry and made sure to keep them by 
playing dirty and stealing others ideas left and right (read Apple`s 
ideas).
    Give them a real punishment. MONEY. Make them fork over 
$3billion for education and spend it on Macintosh computers. Or 
maybe some Linux systems, so a young child can see what makes up his 
OS, and learn about it, extend it and become part of it, while 
building a SMARTER America!!! And make sure they can no longer do 
things like require an OEM to not sell a system with any other OS 
except Windows if they sell Windows too. Yeah MS does this!!! 
Including Internet Explorer is the LEAST of our worries. Also they 
should be FORCED to publish information on how there protocols work. 
Especially since they base them on Open Standards and give no credit 
or monetary support to the community that maintains and generates 
those standards.
    Tim Bithoney



MTC-00003842

From: Richard Mallamo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:54am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear DOJ:
    As a Microsoft customer for over 15 years, and as a member of 
that constituency little mentioned in discussions of the Microsoft 
Settlement_ the computer-using public_let me state in no 
uncertain terms that the proposed settlement is not a punishment, 
it`s a REWARD!
    I will not take up your time with a lengthy discussion of all 
the points against this settlement (which seems to have been written 
by Microsoft`s lawyers) as I`m sure you will be inundated with 
detailed analyses by some very learned people. Suffice to say that 
this so-called remedy does nothing to insure that I, the customer, 
will over the coming years be able to purchase good, reasonably 
priced (or even free) alternatives to Microsoft products_or 
even better Microsoft products. Rather, I will be subject to more 
insults like the new license activation scheme, with its potential 
theft of my purchase by Microsoft (as you are doubtless starting to 
learn).
    In its details, the settlement only enhances Microsoft`s 
monopoly. Microsoft is a criminal entity. Indeed, they are a 
recidivist criminal entity. Criminals are supposed to be punished 
... or at least rehabilitated.
    Instead, your remedy punished the Linux community, Sun, Apple, 
and just about every other competitor, while offering numerous 
opportunities for Microsoft to consolidate even more monopoly power. 
This is insanity and an insult to the rule of law.
    I urge you to do the right thing for the citizens of the United 
States and re-consider your course of action. Thank you.
    Yours,
    Richard P. Mallamo



MTC-00003843

From: Mike Odegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have 2 major concerns with the Microsoft Settlement:
    1. Software API`s should be open to everyone, not just 
Businesses Microsoft selects. This would allow anyone who needed to 
communicate to Microsoft software the ability to do so, including 
government agencies, Businesses that are primarily End Users, and 
non-profit organizations, who are writing applications to meet their 
own needs or others that use the applications created. If Microsoft 
can choose to share this critical API interface information to only 
those selected, that still gives them Monopoly Power.
    2. 3-member committee members: These 3 people that are selected 
should be people with many years experience in the Technology 
industry, with experience in a

[[Page 24374]]

wide-variety of areas, not just those supported by Microsoft 
products. They should also be people who will be tough and fair in 
enforcing the Settlement agreement, when finalized and approved. One 
possible candidate is Steve Satchell, who`s been in the Technology 
industry for more than 30 years.



MTC-00003844

From: Frank Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am not an American citizen. I hail from Canada. You may feel 
that I would have no input on such an American struggle as what is 
gripping the American computing world. You would be mistaken. The 
Final Judgment against Microsoft would have as large an impact to us 
in Canada as to you in the US. Many of our computer firms stand on 
the brink of disaster here in Canada, as many more do in the US. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-trust and must be made to 
work fairly. Please find it in your hearts to believe in the coming 
truths of our new age; if you do not see fit to reduce Microsoft`s 
threat against our livelihoods by placing its operating systems in 
trustworthy hands, then please reduce the damage it does by forcing 
it to use open standards. No one can win when only one person 
defines what it means to work America, just as no one won when Adolf 
Hitler defined what it meant to work Germany.
    Frank Meyer
    CS-01 AAFC
    mac@dlcwest.com



MTC-00003845

From: Donovan Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have major problems with the settlement, as designed:
    _It does not address the core issue: that Microsoft is a 
monopoly in the PC Operating System (OS) environment, and is 
illegally extending that monopoly by integrating applications into 
the operating system. This MUST BE prevented AT ALL COSTS. For 
example, Microsoft is currently shipping Windows Media Player as a 
built-in, embedded application installed as part of the Operating 
System installation of Windows XP. It is separable from the OS, 
clearly, because it can be downloaded for other Operating Systems; 
for example, you can download Windows Media Player for Macintosh, 
Windows 2000, and Windows ME. This is clear evidence that the 
application is not a core part of an operating system. By embedding 
this application into the OS, they are attempting to extend their 
monopoly on the OS into the streaming media server business. The 
player is free (as are all competing players; Real.COM and Apple 
both make competing players, but none of them can read the other`s 
formatted files), and so the streaming media player market is not in 
danger. By embedding the application into the OS, however, Microsoft 
is creating demand for its Server application which does not now 
exist. The Streaming Server software is_not_free, and 
neither is any competing server software. In the process of 
embedding the player, Microsoft will artificially create demand for 
the Server, in an arena that they do not currently have a monopoly 
in, and in the process of creating demand for the server, will 
muscle out the current market leader, Real. Windows Media Player is 
just the current example of this activity. Next, Microsoft will 
embed desktop video applications into the OS, in an arena where 
competing products are not free. Some of the competing desktop video 
applications are not even available for Windows (Apple`s iMovie and 
iDVD applications, for example), and embedding these applications 
into the OS will serve to increase Microsoft`s already monopolistic 
hold on the OS market by decreasing demand for competing operating 
systems.
    _It does not punish Microsoft for its transgressions in a 
way that Microsoft will understand. Microsoft has proven, time and 
time again, that they are incapable of listening to reason, of 
facing up to their own failings, and of understanding when they have 
done wrong. Much like a recalcitrant child, sometimes the only 
viable option is to spank them. What this settlement proposes to do 
is put Microsoft into a `timeout' almost exactly like 
the `timeout' they received in 1995. Didn`t they violate 
that consent decree? Isn`t that why we`re here? It is blatantly 
obvious that `timeout' doesn`t work with Microsoft. The 
Department of Justice needs to reconsider this approach, and 
seriously evaluate the spanking method of punishment and lesson-
teaching.
    _It fails to send a clear message to future monopolies: if 
you illegally extend your monopoly power by requiring bundled sales, 
or by bundling your own products in markets where you do not hold 
monopoly power in order to increase your market share in those 
markets, you will be punished ... or, not. You might be able to get 
away with it, or maybe you`ll get punished severely. Let`s remember 
why monopolies are bad, in general: companies with monopoly power in 
a marketplace can create barriers to entry, can artificially inflate 
or deflate market pricing on a whim, and can eradicate whole 
companies in markets based solely on their monopoly position. 
Monopolies can be healthy for a time, as they can create some 
stability in a marketplace. What it is_never_permissible 
for a company with a market monopoly to do is to leverage that 
monopoly power to create marketshare in another market, especially 
when creating marketshare results in another market monopoly for 
said company, as it has or is coming close to having done in the 
Internet Browser space in the immediate case.
    For these reasons, the Department of Justice needs to reevaluate 
why it offered this emasculated remedy, reconsider much more 
stringent penalties, and offer those more stringent penalties to the 
court.



MTC-00003846

From: baritone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Verdict
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to take a moment of your time to voice my extreme 
displeasoure over the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The proposed solution can only help to expand 
Microsoft`s stranglehold on the market while not solving the 
original concern over the monopolistic developement practices. Let 
me explain. First, Microsoft donating software to poor schools is 
indeed generous, however this is a marketing technique used by Apple 
for many years. Apple would sell software to schools and educators 
at a highly reduced cost with the intent to increase market share. 
The idea employed exposes children to the software in hopes that 
they will pur chase it for home. That ids the point where this 
stratagy increases both market share and profitability. Second, 
while this is very generous of Microsoft it does not provide any 
provisions for hindering the practice of elimination of competition 
originally addressed in the suit. Nowhere does it state that 
Microsoft must make their operating system more open to other 
software producersor separate the operating system manufacture from 
the applications manufacture. One must ask themselves whether this 
`settlement' punishes or benefits Microsoft. No changes 
or judgements are passed that change the nature of the original 
issue. Concurrently Microsoft will gain access to a market, namely 
the education market, that they have never been able to fully 
access. This would seem to advance the stranglehold and monopolistic 
tendencies while risking other companies namely Apple computing.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Roughgarden



MTC-00003847

From: parker@narnia.otr.usm.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:29am
Subject: are you kidding me?
    By allowing Microsoft to extend their monopoly even further by 
training the children in schools (government subsidized training!) 
to use Microsoft software is wrong! Their should be another 
operating system or at the least non-Microsoft applications on the 
machines placed in schools, if indeed that route is to be taken. The 
courts have decided that Microsoft is indeed a monopoly and some 
measure of `real` punitive damage should be administered 
against the company. A breakup may be too harsh but to allow them to 
benefit from their wrong doing is doing us, the American People, a 
great disservice and a horrible injustice. A hope you will do your 
job and represent us the people instead of them the special 
interest.
    William Parker
    United States Citizen



MTC-00003848

From: Batchellor, Gary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional I have watched with keen interest the 
proceedings against Microsoft. And in the end I am disappointed that 
from everything I have seen the remedies proposed fall far short of 
punishing Microsoft or even offering a remedy. As far as I can tell 
the remedy lightly slaps Microsoft on the wrist and in certain 
instances reinforces their

[[Page 24375]]

ability to shut others out of the market. Specifically Microsoft can 
ignore any of the non-profit or share ware or free ware or open 
source vendors and their industry. Linux can become a viable 
alternative to Microsoft but under the proposed settlement Microsoft 
can strengthen their grip on the pc market. Please look very 
strongly at the remedies being proposed in the light of how 
Microsoft will deal with others in all industries. This is but one 
example out of many I see. There needs to be a lot more remedy for 
the industry in the settlement, all industries.
    Gary L. Batchellor
    Pulse Systems
    316 636 5900



MTC-00003849

From: Lew Perin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement 
extends no rights over documentation, APIs and communication 
protocols to nonprofit competitors of Microsoft.
    This is a serious flaw and it affects the software development 
work I do for my employer, Cornell Medical College. We depend on, 
among other nonprofit software packages, the Apache web server, 
which is maintained and developed by the nonprofit Apache Foundation 
and which Microsoft is trying to conquer with its IIS product. If 
the Apache foundation is unable to have accurate knowledge of how to 
interoperate with Microsoft software the Apache web server will 
become useless to my employer.
    I mention Apache only as a particularly clear example; there are 
others I could cite. The point here is that ignoring the nonprofit 
competitors of Microsoft puts the ultimate users of software at a 
disadvantage. Surely you understand that it is the consumers who are 
the main party antitrust law is designed to protect.
    Yours,
    Lew Perin



MTC-00003850

From: Chris Zubrzycki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement, in my opinion as a consumer 
and voting american, stinks. I use many platforms, being a student 
at Drexel University, and Windows is the worst. It is buggy, slow, 
and near impossible to keep from crashing. The only way Microsoft is 
able to make products such as this is because the public sees them 
as the only option because it runs on Intel hardware. In their 
settlement Microsoft is saying `Ok, Ok, we were bad. Just give 
us access to schools where we can install our software and brainwash 
the school children with our products. We normally charge $850 
million for it, even though it costs us $1 million actually, but it 
is worth $850 million, really..it is....'
    Ok. do you use windows? how often does your computer crash? 
twice a day? Guess what? Mine do not. At all. I run Mac OS X and 
linux. Please don`t let Microsoft get away with this.
    Chris Zubrzycki



MTC-00003851

From: Lois Quick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft
    Make MS use the custom install on their 
software_especially the OS. I don`t need IE, Outlook, etc as I 
am not using MS software. I don`t mind paying for the parts that are 
included, but I damn sure don`t want to install what I don`t need. I 
really resent having MS trying to get me to use my computer their 
way! (I run Adobe, Corel and Opera)_All those programs let me 
custom install.
    Weezyrider



MTC-00003852

From: first last
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m not at all satisfied with the Microsoft settlement. It is so 
terrible that it makes me feel that my government is corrupt.
    The idea of allowing them to send their software to schools as 
`punishment' is a joke. Everybody knows that will only 
help them with their market penetration.
    Furter, it does nothing to prevent them from continuing to use 
their OS monopoly to gain success in other markets.
    I voted for Bush. I will not do it again if this goes through.



MTC-00003853

From: coffey@ex-hub.cne.celestica.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Deal
    To whom it may concern
    The deal that has been brokered FOR Microsoft expands its 
monopoly now into the schools. This does not put competition back 
into the marketplace but does add more money to the already over 
flowing coffers of Microsoft.
    I agree with the deal being proposed where Microsoft should have 
to open it`s source code to companies it has hindered. It should be 
force to develope their windows products to run on ALL platforms. It 
should be forced not repay the consumers for gouging with the 
outrageous prices it had demanded for it software. It should be 
forced to provide a stripped down version for XP. It should be band 
from supplying IE for 3 years from all XP desktops.
    Put competition back into the OS market and allow people think 
for themselve and make decisions to buy what they wnat not what 
Microsoft think everyone wants. The general public doesn`t even know 
what alternatives are available because there is NO COMPITION with 
Microsoft.
    Presently you can purchase a PC on the open market with anything 
but XP loaded on it. I want to see Linux systems available to an 
open market. I don`t want to have to purchase a PC to format the 
drive and re-install Linus on it. I am being force fed a product I 
neither want nor that I like.
    Maggie Coffey



MTC-00003854

From: Fred A. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:33am
Subject: MickySoft settlement.
    You people have `blown it!' The people want to know 
EXACTLY why you have backed away from a conviction, reaffirmed by a 
higher court, not to mention public opinion!! What you have done 
makes President Bush look BAD, the Administration look BAD, and the 
DOJ looks very bad!! Now you`re in a position where the industry has 
to take measures of it`s own to FORCE proper compensation and SEVERE 
restrictions on Microsoft via the courts and an investigation on 
`the Hill.'
    Fred A. Miller
    Systems Administrator
    Cornell Univ. Press Services
    fm@cupserv.org



MTC-00003855

From: Deniz Franck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:37am
Subject: Say no to microsoft_let them pay for the hardware!!!
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am not one to speak up publicly, but this is the time to be 
heard. I have been a software professional working in this business 
for over 13 years (here are my qualifications:
    http://www.geeksources.com/deniz_franck). I can say that 
I am not a pro-Microsoft, however, I do have an appreciation for 
their business savvy. Their technical savvy leaves a lot to be 
desired, but that is not what is important in the business world, as 
we all know, from numerous business studies and cases.
    In any event, what Microsoft is proposing is a brilliant 
business maneuver. In no means will it help to settle the case, in 
fact, it will assist them with pushing Apple out of the education 
market. A wolf in sheeps clothing is the best description I can 
think of. Please, do not let them do this. My daughter is in 
elementary school, and most of the computers in her school are Apple 
computers. I am not one who programs regularly on a Apple computers, 
but the children enjoy working on them. The most interesting note is 
that my daughter is unaware of the differences between the Apple at 
school, and the mixture of MSWindows98 and Redhat Linux running at 
home. So here is my point: let Apple, Redhat, (or any linux/unix 
vendor), provide the operating systems and tools for free for the 
schools. This is advantageous in 2 respects:
    1. Many more PC`s can be provided to schools
    2. If a child wants to pursue programming as a career, having 
exposure to many operating systems (especially unix/apple), can lead 
to them making more $$ in their careers. Exposure to just MS will 
lead to a future of only MS programmers, which would be unfortunate, 
and would pigeon-hole many of them to a smaller segment of jobs 
available.
    Let Microsoft provide the funds for the hardware, but not the 
software. This is the one area in which they have attempted to stay 
out of, in terms of competition. Since the

[[Page 24376]]

lawsuit is directly associated with their ill practices in 
competition, let them `sit this one out'. Make them pay 
for the hardware, not the software, and let the rest of the industry 
have the chance to donate the software for free. I am willing to bet 
there will be a stampede of those willing to help. True justice will 
have been served.
    Deniz Franck



MTC-00003856

From: glolro1@charon.npc.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse,
    Open-source organizations should be granted the same protections 
that commercial organizations are granted in the settlement. Open-
source software provides great benefits to the software industry. It 
is a sensible alternative to the never-ending upgrade 
`treadmill' that many software companies force upon 
their customers. Apache, the web server software used by twice as 
many web-sites as Microsoft IIS, is open-source software.
    Even though Apache is twice as common on the internet, it 
doesn`t have anywhere close to the number of security problems that 
IIS has. Problems such as the Nimbda, and similar worms. Apache is 
simply better!
    Microsoft perceives this as a threat. Current language 
specifying that only commercial concerns are eligible for API 
information will no doubt be used by Microsoft to shut out open-
source developers from the vital API information that they need. 
This would have the unintended effect of enhancing Microsoft`s 
monopoly power.
    API disclosure needs to be public with no strings attached. A 
`Microsoft API' web site would fit this need with 
minimal staffing/administration required on Microsoft`s part.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    _Robert Glover, Software Developer
    2716 Hampton Ct.
    Jeffersonville, IN 47130
    eMail:
    rglover@npc.net
    rtglover@home.com



MTC-00003857

From: Doug Kartio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ?
    After looking into the proposed settlement papers from 
Microsoft. I have to voice my option that you do not settle with the 
proposed agreement. Microsoft is not being punished what so ever, 
and they will most likely be stronger then before.
    Microsoft has destroyed almost every for-profit business in the 
computer industry, it main source of competition these days comes 
from not-for-profit organizations, such as Apache, SAMBA, and Linux 
organizations. These companies that support this technology are 
totally excluded from getting any documentation, APIs, and source 
from Microsoft, the way the settlement is written.
    Also, Microsoft has made hundreds of billions of dollars by 
ripping off, legal threaten and good-old-fashion steamrolling of 
other software and hardware companies. Financially, this case has 
done nothing to make Microsoft think about changing their ways.
    They have falsified evidence, their executives have lied under 
oath, and they have been found guilty of the monopolistic behavior, 
and you and letting them get away with it. If this case finishes 
this way you will not have upheld the law or belief that the 
Judicial branch of the United States can protect its citizens.
    Sincerely
    Doug Kartio



MTC-00003858

From: Roger Sarrasin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:42am
Subject: Settlement opinion
    `settlement forces Microsoft to donate software, hardware, 
and services to America`s poorest schools. Red Hat responded to the 
proposed settlement, pointing out that the settlement could simply 
introduce Microsoft to a market where they could further extend 
their monopoly.'
    My opinion is simple: Open Source Software is the answer for any 
school.
    Linux is the solution for all schools.
    Microsoft is OK for business world only.
    Roger Sarazin
    Network Trainer
    MCSE, MCP2000, CCNA, A+, Network+



MTC-00003859

From: Bradford Behr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement are ludicrous. 
The actual cost to Microsoft of the donated software is a small 
fraction of the claimed market price, so the penalty to them is 
minimal. Furthermore, they get new inroads into the education 
market. How is this supposed to dissuade them from future 
misbehavior?
    I think it`d be great for the nation`s poorest schools to 
benefit from the settlement. Let`s be sure, though, that the primary 
aim of the settlement_punishment and prevention_is met. 
I`m sure you folks can come up with something that will achieve both 
ends.
    Sincerely,
    Bradford Behr
    Austin TX



MTC-00003860

From: Cain, Michael E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The message criticizes one particular aspect of the proposed 
settlement of the current Microsoft antitrust case. The trial court 
found that mingling of application and operating system code was an 
illegal act. This finding was upheld by the appeals court. I believe 
that any settlement must address this issue. Merely disabling the 
user interface of an application is not adequate, as enabling the 
interface is a trivial exercise compared to downloading and 
installing a complete application. Microsoft should be required to 
compete on the same basis as other application vendors, hence 
Microsoft applications should be required to be completely 
removable. The settlement should establish a date by which all 
operating system versions shipped by Microsoft must comply with this 
requirement.
    Michael Cain
    6925 Independence Street
    Arvada, CO 80004



MTC-00003861

From: Peter Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed DoJ/Microsoft settlement is grossly 
inadequate. It is an insult to the DoJ that it make such excellent 
progress in showing the blatant anti-trust tendancies of Microsoft 
in court, only to capitulate to Microsoft`s interests in this 
shamble of a settlement.
    Priorities should have included:
    *legitimacy of non-commercial, `open-source' 
efforts, not just those meeting `reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business, ...'
    *full documentation of API`s to allow 3rd parties to develop 
Windows-compatible software and prevent Microsoft from using 
undocumented API calls and other hooks to make Windows, IE, Office, 
Outlook, etc. inseparable
    The `nine states' counter-proposal shows far greater 
initiative to achieving these goals and others, WITHOUT compromising 
Microsoft`s or others` ability to pursue business in the 
marketplace. In the interests of consumers, the DoJ ought to take 
the `nine states' proposed solution very seriously.
    Peter H. Lawrence, Research Engineer
    Information Technology & Telecommunications Laboratory
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    Georgia Center for Advanced Telecommunications Technology
    250 14th St., NW, Suite 246A, Atlanta, GA 30318
    Phone: (404) 894-6847 Fax: (404) 894-6634
    Email: peter.lawrence@gtri.gatech.edu



MTC-00003862

From: Nicholas Del Medico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to comment on the Microsoft settlement. I am 
extremely bothered by the actions the U.S. Government and, 
specifically, the Department of Justice prioritizes. Protection of 
U.S. citizens seems to fall very low on that list. I myself am a 
software developer. There have also been many occasions when I was 
disappointed or unhappy with Microsoft`s products. Do you know what 
I did? I used one of their competitors products. A right every 
citizen in this country has and may exercise at any moment. Most 
consumers decide not to for many reasons. Microsoft products tend to 
be easier to use, easier to setup and less expensive. Consumers are 
not buying Microsoft products because they are forced

[[Page 24377]]

to. They are buying Microsoft for a variety of reasons specific to 
each individual consumer. Reasons that are so varying that no matter 
how much central planning a government does, it could never match 
the success of a COMPLETELY free market. In a completely free 
market, only good monopolies exist. A monopoly that provides an 
inferior service and charges customers more than the service is 
worth can only exist with government protections (i.e.; the US Post 
Office). Since a consumer won`t voluntarily pay more than they feel 
a good or service is worth, a free market automatically destroys 
`bad' monopolies. On the other hand, when businesses 
that constantly improve their goods and services while at the same 
time lowering their prices (ie; Microsoft) `corner the 
market', it shows that the company must be suiting the needs 
of its customers. The Sherman Act is anti-american as is anyone that 
supports it. I urge you to stop wasting our money. Not only on 
prosecuting consumer friendly businesses but on every victimless 
crime the DOJ feels takes priority over the protection of US 
citizens lives. After all, your reasoning for wasting OUR money is, 
supposedly, for OUR best interests.
    Thank You,
    Nick DelMedico
    CC:Nicholas Del Medico



MTC-00003863

From: Mike Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:50am
Subject: Legal Submission by interested party (a consumer)
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have to admit, when I heard of the deal that the DOJ made with 
Microsoft, I had to hang my head in shame.
    In a country that we depend on the government governed by the 
people, we the people were sold out to big business. I know this was 
a political decision, as our present President of the Country ran on 
the platform of being pro business. But one thing the people had to 
rely on in the past is the Justice Department keeping politicians in 
line with protecting the people of the United States from illegal 
business practices. You people wonder why America doesn`t trust 
their government, this last DEAL you made with Microsoft just adds 
to the long list of reasons why we don`t trust our government.
    I am just a average person, I follow the laws in this country, 
and taught my children to follow the laws, and even taught them how 
to fight the laws within the system architecture to change unfair 
laws. But when they ask me now how to change the law within the 
boundaries of the law or fight an unfair law, how can I tell them 
when I can not tell them that our government is not looking out to 
protect the people? Microsoft has been found guilty in both the 
courts and appeal process on monopoly charges and practices.
    Yet, your solution is to tell them fine, we will make a deal and 
you can continue your practice as if you did nothing, and you can 
continue to do these practices. I am amazed that you all can sleep 
at night. I know I would have problems.
    All the consumer wants is choice. All we want is if laws are 
broken, then adequate punishment is applied so that those laws will 
be too costly to break again. Thank goodness that our State Attorney 
General is behind the idea of protecting the people that you were 
hired to do. The Federal Attorney`s solution would actually spread 
the monopoly of microsoft into the schools and will reduce the 
competition so they can expand their monopoly practices. The time 
limits suggested is way to short. They should not be able to engage 
in any monopolistic practices for at least ten (10) years. In the 
past, I have put Netscape on my machines, and windows crashed, 
simply because Internet Explorer code was set up to not allow other 
competitive programs to share the same machine. If Microsoft wants 
to integrate their products into their platform, then they should 
provide in addition a platform that is basic and allows manufactures 
and people to add their own choices of programs. Any other solution 
is considered monopolistic.
    In other words, I can buy a car with a radio, air conditioning, 
power brakes, etc. I do not have to buy one brand, even after the 
car is paid for. A standard is set that all of the electronic and 
hardware is interchangeable to the choice of the consumer, not the 
manufactures. A Ford or Chevy will take a third party radio for 
example if I want to change it, is my point.
    I know this will never reach the judge, but at least I put in 
the consumers point of view.
    Michael D. Nelson
    2448 Rebecca Rd.
    Manhattan, KS 66502
    785 587-0664
    CC:GENERAL@ksag.org@inetgw



MTC-00003864

From: SodaPop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work with open source code all the time, and it disturbs me 
that the proposed remedy against Microsoft does not include 
provisions to allow the open source community access to the same 
interfaces as Microsofts competitors. Under the current wording, 
only entities that fall under the classical definition of business 
will benefit from this settlement. It is my recommendation that the 
remedy be expanded to include providing interoperability information 
to open source projects.
    The software landscape and business rules have changed greatly 
in the last few years. An increasingly large number of services run 
and are supported by open source_everything from the internet 
DNS system, to the mailer I am using to send this letter. A great 
deal of time and effort has also gone into reverse engineering 
Microsoft protocols and standards in an attempt to interoperate with 
Microsoft products. Microsofts greatest competitor is no longer 
other businesses, but the open source movement. With the settlement 
as it currently stands, Microsoft can continue to impede the 
progress of open source. It is my opinion that this not be allowed 
to happen.
    Thank you for your time,
    Dennis Towne



MTC-00003865

From: apfister@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`ve been a software developer for 14 years and have watched the 
rise of the Microsoft empire. I`d like to comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    From the accounts I`ve read the settlement does not do enough to 
stop Microsoft from using their monopoly power to continue to grow 
in influence in the industry. Forcing them to publish API`s to their 
OS does nothing but encourage more developers to write to their 
platform. That makes no sense at all if we are trying to encourage 
competition in the OS arena.
    The two things Microsoft should be forced to do:
_publish their file formats (like Word, Excel)
_publish their network protocols (like SAMBA)
    These two actions will encourage other operating systems to 
compete in the very area that Microsoft dominates.
    Thank you.
    Adrian Pfisterer.
    1536 E. 1700 S.
    Salt Lake City, UT 84105
    apfister@pfamily.org



MTC-00003866

From: Scot Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    I am very upset concerning the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. The specific area in which I am 
concerned about is the settlement`s verbiage which gives Microsoft 
the ability, through legal channels, to stop a distribution of a 
software package. For discussion purposes I will cite the 
`SAMBA' software package, but please know that there are 
several other packages which may fall into this category.
    The SAMBA software package is an open source (meaning that the 
source code of the software is open to scrutiny by any user) and 
free software package that allows Unix, Linux, and other non-Windows 
computers to interface with Microsoft Windows computers. Please 
understand that I am using `Unix' to cover several 
vendor specific operating systems such as IBM`s AIX, SGI`s Irix, Sun 
Microsystems` Solaris, as well as several free and open source 
operating systems: namely OpenBSD Unix and FreeBSD Unix. There are 
several smaller unices that are in use as well that I do not 
mention.
    While on the surface, the settlement`s verbiage giving Microsoft 
the ability to stop these distributions from being published may 
seem like a good business idea, it is most definitely not a good 
idea to businesses that do not utilize a homogeneous Microsoft based 
network. Examine all those institutions that use a Linux or Unix 
server and Microsoft Windows desktop clients.
    Please recall, that Unix is being used as a general blanket term 
to cover all those operating systems given above. The list of

[[Page 24378]]

corporations and government facilities that use a network topology 
such as this is a number that is growing rather than shrinking.
    Many network administrators and information technology officers 
are looking to Linux and Unix as a viable alternative to Microsoft 
Windows on a server platform due to lower operating cost and higher 
system reliability. Others are using Linux and Unix with open source 
alternatives to simplify server management. As anyone can imagine, 
it is much simpler to manage a single vendor`s product rather than 
multiple vendors products. The number of companies that would be 
impacted has the potential to be very large.
    As a practical example of this I would cite an article on ZDNet, 
the on-line arm of Ziff Davis Media, dated June 25, 2001, entitled 
`Department of Defense adopts StarOffice.' This article 
explains how the Department of Defense is utilizing a service 
contract with Sun Microsystems, which is already in place due to Sun 
servers in use at the Department of Defense, to implement Sun 
Microsystems` StarOffice office productivity package at a reduced 
cost to the tax payer. If the Department of Defense is using Sun 
Microsystems` Solaris as a server operating system and Microsoft 
Windows as a desktop system, a move by Microsoft to stop the SAMBA 
package would have very costly ramifications to the Department of 
Defense and the tax payers.
    I have very briefly given one example of a software package that 
is in wide use in business and in higher education that could be 
impacted by Microsoft at great expense to the American people.
    Thank you for your time.
    Scot Snyder



MTC-00003867

From: goverdier@dsscorp.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:10am
Subject: RED HAT RESPONDS TO MICROSOFT ANTITRUST, CLASS-ACTION 
SETTLEMENTS
    Dear Sirs,
    I am in favor of the Redhat proposal to have Microsoft make 
there settlement in the form of hardware contributions to the 
schools. Allowing them to supply their own software is only aiding 
Microsoft in entrenching themselves even farthing into their 
monopolistic practice.
    Allowing Rehat (or some other non-Microsoft vendor) to provide 
the operating system for the machines would be a far greater 
punishment for Microsoft and maybe more of a deterrent to this kind 
of practice in the future.
    Microsoft has been before the DOJ several times in the past and 
always seems to come out of it with a mere slap on the wrist, only 
to return to monopolizing the software industry from a different 
angle. I don`t believe any other corporation would get away with 
this kind of behavior. Microsoft is no different.
    Thank you,
    George Overdier



MTC-00003868

From: Augey Mikus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States Department of Justice
    To whom it may concern:
    I find it extremely disturbing that a company so deceptive and 
manipulative as Microsoft that is now a convicted monopolist could 
have such a small, underwhelming, unpunishing final sentence. It is 
obvious to me and so many others that a company with so much 
financial power could easily take advantage of their position even 
further and destroy their only competitor at this point in the game 
which is a small group of not for profit organizations that work for 
free and give away their software for free. The realm of software 
has changed. The computer industry is no longer about software, it 
is about power and control of information. Can you not see how 
Microsoft and AOL have already figured that out. MSNBC, AOL Time 
Warner . . . get it? These companies don`t make the best 
most stable software, they are marketing geniouses with a large 
control of information. Here is an example of the power Microsoft 
has.
    Microsoft, with a snap of it`s fingers could make it so only 
their internet browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer, can view one of 
the largest internet portals in existence, msn.com. Completely 
crippling Netscape and the Mozilla group (www.mozilla.org) in one 
fell swoop. Do you think that is so far off?
    Guess what, they already did that just to see what would happen.
(http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1005-200-7655334.html)
    This is scary stuff that still this late in the game has not 
been stopped in the least bit by the government.
    In fact, while this case was going on, Windows XP which takes 
what they were guilty of even further was just finishing 
development. Now it`s out with no limitations by the government. As 
one `punishment', Microsoft must donate $1 Billion to 
poor school systems around the country. In reality what they must 
donate is not even close to $1 Billion. A great deal of the money is 
just software licenses for their own software!!!! They don`t have to 
do anything but make CDs that costs them less than a couple pennies 
to create. The rest is in hardware cost that is nothing to them. The 
biggest problem I have with this ruling is that it is a punishment 
that only futhers a monopolists monopoly! Its tantamount to saying: 
`Microsoft, You are guilty of using your large marketshare as 
an unfair advantage in destroying the competition. You have taken 
away the consumer`s choice. Now you must put more of your software 
in schools and leave the schools no choice. You must have an unfair 
advantage in the education industry against Apple, your main 
competitor in that realm. Bad Microsoft, you should be ashamed of 
yourself. If this happens again, You better believe we`re going to 
force you to put your computers and software in more schools and 
more government organizations!�1A' Wow, thats scary. I bet 
this will keep them from taking advantage of the consumer!
    Don`t let Microsoft get away so easily with the crimes they have 
already been proven guilty of !!
    Augey Mikus
    Software Engineer
    ScriptRx, Inc.
    augey.mikus@scriptrx.com
    561-805-5935 X.121 (Office)
    561-662-4212 (Cell)
    561-805-5936 (Fax)



MTC-00003869

From: DJ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:16am
Subject: proposed settlement allows Microsoft to EXPAND its monopoly 
by giving it a stronger foothold in the education market
    The proposed Microsoft settlement actually allows the company to 
expand its monopoly. By allowing Microsoft to give its software to 
schools, they will get a stronger foothold in the education 
environment, period. This is not a punishment, its a gift, kind of 
like punishing a child for not eating his broccoli by telling him he 
can only eat ice cream. How can this be allowed to happen? By the 
simplest logic it is absurd.
    They should be broken up but if that won`t happen and this 
settlement must go through then they should have to pay billions to 
schools and allow the schools to spend that money in ANY way they 
want. If they want to spend it on books or teacher`s salaries or 
computers or repairs to buildings that should be the school`s call. 
Second a series of stringent restrictions should be placed on the 
company so that they can not abuse their power. For instance they 
should not be able to advertise additional services on the desktop 
or with pop up windows or icons. MSN should not be the default page 
for Internet explorer. They should not be able to stop computer 
manufactures from selling alternative OSes through restrictive 
licensing. They should not be able to arbitrarily change their 
licensing scheme to rake in billions of extra dollars.
    Please consider my thoughts as you go forward.
    DJ



MTC-00003870

From: Larry Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft affair shocks me. Why 
would we punish MS by rewarding them? Allowing them to donate 
Windows computers to schools would only further entrench their 
monopoly. How is that a punishment? The billion dollars would be 
peanuts to them anyway. And our school children would be severely 
disadvantaged by such an arrangement. The solution I thought of that 
would both punish MS and help society would be for MS to donate ten 
MACINTOSH computers to every public (and private) school every year 
for five years. I recommend this as the remedy. Students and 
teachers would benefit immensely.
    Please remember, the goal is to reduce MS` monopoly position, 
not reinforce it.
    Thank you for your work on this important issue.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 24379]]

    Larry Smith
    Dept. of Physics
    Snow College
    150 College Ave.
    Ephraim, UT 84627-1550 USA
    voice: (435) 283-7520
    fax: (435) 283-7501
    mailto:Larry.Smith@snow.edu
    http://www.snow.edu/�7Elarrys



MTC-00003871

From: Kent Morrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:15am
Subject: Implications of the Proposed Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    With regard to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case,
    I have these comments:
    1. Substantial penalties should be levied. The anti-competitive 
practices which Microsoft eggregiously persued will not be 
discouraged by words on a page. MONEY and MORE MONEY in FINES is the 
way to show Microsoft and other offenders that this type of behavior 
will not be tolerated. This corporation is SO RICH and SO BLOATED 
that it will take MILLIONS AND MILLIONS in fines to even scratch 
their armor.
    2. The placing of MORE Microsoft software in public schools, no 
matter how needy they are, is NOT THE ANSWER. This provides 
Microsoft with additional market exposure, helping them to get a 
strangle hold on the next generation of computer users. GET 
MICROSOFT OUT OF THE SCHOOLS!
    3. Open Source software solutions are what is required. Force 
Microsoft to place LINUX desktop computers in our Nation`s schools. 
This will give fair exposure of NON-MONOPOLISTIC systems to 
impressionable young students.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Kent Morrison
    Manager, Information Systems
    City of Steamboat Springs Colorado



MTC-00003872

From: Daniel Aharon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I`m offering my comment that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft v DOJ and States case is not sufficient to help consumers, 
the IT industry, or the US economy in general. Microsoft should be 
properly penalized for breaking the law and causing so much damage 
to the working and personal lives of so many people. Here at the 
University of Pennsylvania, I observe clear and striking examples 
everyday of how my coworkers lives are made worse by being forced to 
use Microsoft Windows and Office every day to accomplish their 
tasks. The concept that the `Operating System war is 
over' is truly frightening to the IT sector. Can we condemn 
ourselves to a future run solely by Microsoft software, and hold 
ourselves in economic hostage to them?
    I recommend that Microsoft be required to immediately cease and 
desist the development and production of all current and future 
versions of Windows, be forced to put the source code for Microsoft 
Office into the public domain, and liquidate, delivering all 36+ 
billion of its cash and assets to a fund used to provide as many 
former users of Windows as possible with new computers running a 
non-Windows operating system, such as Mac OS or Linux.
    Whatever decision you make, please don`t allow Microsoft to 
escape virtually unpunished and stronger than ever, which is what 
the current settlement would ensure.
    Thanks,
    Dan
    Daniel Gil Aharon
    University of Pennsylvania
    SOM/Information Services
    (215) 573-5994
    aharon@mail.med.upenn.edu
    PGP Key ID: 0x7EBF3379



MTC-00003873

From: milo@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:53am
Subject: The proposed MSFT settlement_my opinion (absolutely 
unacceptable!)
    Dear DOJ,
    I`m writing to express my opinion of the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft_which I believe is utterly unacceptable.
    May I point out that I have more experience with computers than 
most people; in fact, than most technical people. I`ve been 
programming since I was 9 years old_which was in 1975. I`ve 
been on the Internet long before most people knew it existed. I have 
a Wharton MBA, and have been a senior (VP & officer) executive 
of several Silicon Valley firms. (I am NOT currently employed by any 
firm that directly or indirectly has any 
relationship_adversarial or otherwise_with Microsoft.) 
I`ve negotiated with Microsoft (quite successfully, I might add!) at 
the Director level. I have met Bill Gates, I know the CTO and CEO of 
Intel, Stanford`s expert on networking technology, the former CEO of 
3Com and current CEO of Exodus, Lawrence Lessig at Harvard, and many 
other key players in this industry. I know networking technology 
intimately_in fact, I`ve built my own networks including 
hardware, operating systems, cabling, and IP setup.
    Given the strength of the initial court`s findings (under Judge 
Jackson), I find it unbelievable and unconscionable that DOJ would 
roll over and present such an incredibly weak proposed settlement. 
Not only is it complete capitulation where none was 
necessary_it does not settle even half the merits of the 
initial case.
    It has been found that Microsoft not only IS a monopoly, but has 
abused its monopoly position in clear violation of US antitrust 
law_these two points are clear and beyond dispute. The 
proposed remedy, from a structural point of view, is toothless and 
does not address, let alone solve, those two issues. In fact, 
Microsoft CLEARLY shows by its recent actions (particularly with 
regard to XP and .NET) that it is taking steps to further cement its 
dominance of the operating system that, effectively, most of the 
world depends on, is tied and beholden to, and must interoperate 
with. More than IBM ever did under its consent decree, Microsoft 
owns, dominates, and controls how virtually every individual and 
enterprise interacts with information, computers, networks, and 
knowledge. THIS IS INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS_regardless of 
Microsoft`s intent. And in fact, Microsoft has shown over and over 
again that its intent is NOT benign.
    I personally do not favor a `structural' remedy in 
this case_it`s not only not particularly pragmatic, but I 
think it would fail to address dominance in the to-be-separated 
areas. What would be far more helpful would be a combination of just 
a few remedies_all of which have been proposed. The most 
important are these: (a) availability of source code_this 
would allow competitors to make products (e.g. digital media tools) 
that run as well as Microsoft`s; without it, that is almost 
impossible as a practical matter, since Microsoft owns the OS and 
only they know how to interoperate with it optimally. Existing 
copyright and other IP protection is sufficient that opening the 
source code would not dilute ALLOWABLE IP value. (b) Microsoft must 
not be permitted to dictate to manufacturers how Windows is 
configured, which options may, must, or may or must NOT be 
installed, or offer differential, preferential, or incentive pricing 
or terms (which it currently is doing with Windows XP!) of ANY kind. 
(c) Windows (and subsequent `platform' class systems 
such as .NET) should be modularized, with freely available APIs that 
are the SAME APIs provided internally to Microsoft`s own teams. If 
groups within Microsoft were to be `Chinese-walled' from 
one another, and the information they share be required to be shared 
with developers at large, I believe true competition would arise, 
leading to enormous economic benefit.
    One has only to look at the utter failure of the Telecom 
deregulation act of 1996_and the resultant crash of the 
competitive telecom sector!_to see how bad this settlement 
would be for true, American-style, free-market competition in the IT 
market. The disaster would reverberate for decades, and have a 
profound impact on the way of life of not only all Americans, but 
all people worldwide.
    I implore you_crack open the fortress. Use the tools you 
have_the findings of Judge Jackson were clear, unambiguous, 
and powerful. Impose a remedy that reflects that_and is 
just!_not some weak half-attempt that virtually every expert 
agrees will fail.
    Regards,
    Andrew Corradini



MTC-00003874

From: Tim Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To whom it may concern,
    Please reconsider your proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
work in the IT industry and travel to clients throughout Indiana, 
Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. Several times I have had discussions 
with IT/LAN Administrators and even though they are not happy with 
the Microsoft products they use (Windows NT/2000 in particular) they 
see no other alternative since they are the only one most

[[Page 24380]]

of their vendors will work with them on. The only way to break 
Microsoft`s choke hold on the IT industry is to break their OS 
(Windows) division away from their Application and Internet 
divisions. An even better option, in my opinion, would be three 
companies and split the OS, Application and Internet divisions all 
into their own company.
    No one I have talked to agrees that your `oversight' 
committee idea will have any impact whatsoever on the way Microsoft 
does business. Please reconsider and do the IT industry, America and 
the rest of the world a favor and get us out from under Microsoft`s 
boot.
    Thank You for letting me take some of your time with this 
information.
    Tim Duncan
    2335 Lammermoor Lane
    Indianapolis, IN 46234



MTC-00003875

From: Cook, Thomas
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello_
    Please, please, please do not allow MS to `donate' 
MS software to schools as part of their penalty. Shouldn`t the 
penalty reward the plaintiffs and punish MS? How does subjecting our 
education system to forced enslavement to MS do either of these 
things? MS is not even giving the software to the 
schools. . . it is only lending it to them for 5 years 
before they ask for payment for any continued use? What a joke 
. . . when I donate something to my local school do I say 
. . . you can use this nice musical instrument for 5 years 
but then I am going to come back and ask you to pay me for any use 
after that? And that is a donation, not a lawsuit settlement 
penalty. Or even better yet, do you ask your children what 
punishment they deserve for stealing money from their siblings? I am 
sure they would come up with a novel idea of punishment.
    Microsoft should have to pay a VERY large CASH penalty to the 
Justice Department that could be used to fund the SEVERE monitoring 
that is necessary to ensure that they no longer use the type of 
blatantly illegal and monopolistic practices that has stymed 
computer development in MS hell for the past 15 years. MS has 
demonstrated time after time that they don`t think they did anything 
wrong and therefore will continue to do the same thing that brought 
us to this poinnt without a severe real penalty and strict 
monitoring of future business practices.
    Don`t let the inmates run the prison_
    Thomas J. Cook



MTC-00003876

From: Mattheis, Paul
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I agree with the settements in this article. I also agree with 
the proposed settlement from the 9 states over the federal 
settlement. Open APIs etc to all (including open source and non-
profit/not-for-profit/etc organizations).
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html



MTC-00003877

From: Eric Boes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a small business consultant I have virtually no choice but to 
rely on Microsoft products for many applications despite their high 
cost and security weaknesses. Their only real competition in the OS 
marketplace are open-source projects like Linux, Apache and SAMBA.
    I was disturbed to discover that no consideration of those 
products was made in the proposed settlement. Please consider 
revising Section III(J)(2) to provide protection for those products, 
and products like them by requiring that Microsoft APIs MUST be 
licensed, documented at least 180 days prior to being revised. The 
current language, especially in section (C) undermines the progress 
of legitimate competitors to Microsoft because they are not owned by 
a for-profit entity.
    Thanks
    Eric Boes,
    Beaverton, OR



MTC-00003878

From: David Gessel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    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 it`s 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] reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...' nor under Section III(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 it`s most popular flavor freeBSD, and it`s 
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 it`s failures. 
While major security holes are exposed in IIS every month or so, 
despite Microsoft`s efforts to sweep 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 desktop 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 challenge 
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 94601
    510 290 3849 (cel)
    510 536 0105 (fax)
    www.blackrosetech.com



MTC-00003879

From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    There will be more entrepeneours able to invent or design better 
programs and equipment than we have todat. Microsoft was and is a 
very important contribution to the world..
    I appreciate the advances that have occurred because of this 
company.. Stop this terrible incursion into the world of better 
inventions and let our economy work and prosper like no other 
country has ever done.
    Stop the evil persecution of a man and company that has done so 
much for the world_ regardless of the wealth he has created 
for so many including himself_Congratulate_don`t sue !!!

[[Page 24381]]



MTC-00003880

From: Tom Hogarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:06pm
Subject: BeOS
    Hi,
    I am an investor in BeOS.
    This seemed to be a very efficient and competitive solution for 
people wanting a fast, reliable and attractive operating system.
    Unfortunately BeOS was in competition with MicroSoft, who makes 
another Operating System. I was certain that the technological 
advantages of BeOS and the flexibility of its small, dynamic team of 
developers and supporting community had all the right values to be a 
winner.
    My investment was when the stock averaged $18 and I lost in 
excess of $90,000 on the value of the stock.
    I am still holding the stocks which I bought at $18 which are 
now worth 9 cents each. It has been difficult to watch a competitor 
wipe out the market opportunities of Be`s product and I hope the DoJ 
will get remedies for some of the unfortunate BeOS investors.
    Best Regards,
    Tom Hogarty



MTC-00003881

From: Jim Hefferon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    These are my comments as to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case.
    The entire settlement can only be considered a giveaway to an 
organization whose anti-competitive actions have been established to 
the satisfaction of two Federal courts. However, the portions in 
Section III(J)(2) and in Section III(D) that require only that 
Microsoft disclose the technical specifications to commercial 
enterprises (and where determining the definition of 
`commercial' is up to Microsoft) is an outrage.
    As Professor L Lessig has demonstrated, it is the use of open 
protocols and systems that has allowed the Internet to exist and to 
grow. This proposed settlement is a sad step backward.
    I strongly urge that the settlement be scrapped.
    James S Hefferon
    Saint Michael`s College
    Colchester VT



MTC-00003882

From: Dan Stromberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:17pm
Subject: about the microsoft settlements
    Please use the settlement proposed by the 9 remaining states, 
including California. They know what they`re talking about. 
Microsoft`s getting off far too easy in the proposed DOJ settlement.
    If you must go ahead with the proposed DOJ settlement: Please 
consider Steve Satchel for the DOJ`s Microsoft settlement advisory 
panel.
    Please give the DOJ settlement more teeth. As far as I can tell, 
the only penalty if Microsoft violates the terms of the agreement, 
is a longer monitoring phase_which had just proved 
ineffective. More of the same wouldn`t appear to be an effective 
deterrent.
    Please make the settlement have some bearing on opensource 
projects. That is, don`t allow Microsoft to use its anticompetitive 
tricks against linux, apache, samba, python, perl and so on, just 
because they aren`t directly championed by companies. Sure, there 
are plenty of companies selling this stuff, but that`s a different 
matter. These projects represent the biggest threat to Microsoft`s 
stranglehold on the computing industry, and are the only source of 
competition microsoft has. Plus don`t allow Microsoft to define 
these as non-businesses, and hence behave in an unregulated manner 
with regard to them.
    Dan Stromberg
    UCI/NACS/DCS



MTC-00003883

From: erw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a little note from us little guys.
    I would like to see some protection for the linux / open source 
software developers. It would be nice if a citizen could choose any 
OS or software package because of their personnal preference. I use 
linux, as well as nt and 98. Each has its own strengths and 
er....weaknesses.
    Things like samba and wine are great tools that have been forged 
from a desire to use some of the giants available software and still 
use our desired os.
    Things like the API`s should be available to all. Why should the 
defacto standard desktop os have difficulty licensing (for free) to 
all who need to know. Even GM allows vendors to sell repair manuals 
that detail the functions of your car.
    Please look at Section III(D) and Section III(J)(2)
    Thank you,
    Earl



MTC-00003884

From: A415A@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage the Government to give Microsoft a fair and just 
settlement in the case at hand. I personally feel that Microsoft has 
made a very great and substantial contribution toward the 
advancement of the computer industry. I feel like the public has not 
been disadvantaged by Microsoft`s pricting policies. My feeling is 
that without Microsoft`s aggresive effort our computer industry 
would not have advanced at the tremendious rate that it has. I feel 
that the charges brought against Microsoft, by the Government, has 
been unfair and unjust, and has perhaps stunted the future growth in 
this industry. I request that the Government not pentalize Microsoft 
and not impose any restrictions against them that would reduce their 
ability to carry out the mission of advancing this technology at the 
very reasonable prices they have been charging for their services 
and products
    George O. Ellis
    Petroleum engineer
    415 Lakeside Est Dr.
    Houston, TX 77042



MTC-00003885

From: Mike Kane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:22pm
Subject: Settlement opinion
    I agree with the opinion offered by Steve Jobs at Apple 
Computer. Letting Microsoft settle by donating products to the 
education market is a self-serving, monopoly perpetuating act. Other 
companies fight hard for their competitive position in the education 
market. Competing against a gift is an impossible scenario. In 
addition, the actual cost to Microsoft for the finished goods is a 
fraction of the monetary value of the settlement.
    For Microsoft to ``get the message`` they must feel real pain as 
a consequence of their predatory market practices. My opinion is 
that funneling the settlement into the education market is good, but 
the settlement should be aimed at providing hard dollars into real 
educational needs such as teacher salaries, capital improvements, 
text books, lunch programs, etc.
    Thank you for listening.
    Mike Kane
    408-395-6533 ph
    408-884-2251 fx
    408-497-8448 c
    mkane@mktgpartners.com
    http://www.mktgpartners.com



MTC-00003886

From: David A. De Graaf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case is 
deeply flawed. It rewards Microsoft`s criminal acts instead of 
penalizing them. This report is extrememly disturbing:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    One of the main complaints agains Microsoft is their propensity 
to twist and deface accepted interface standards and to fail to 
publish interfaces. Section III(J)(2) says MS need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols... to 
companies that don`t meet *Microsoft`s* criteria as a business.
    This cuts off essential information to the entire Open Source 
development community_the very people that need the 
information to hold this criminal monopoly accountable.
    Since these folks are not working for a profit, Microsoft will 
certainly not consider them a `business', even though 
they have publically admitted Open Source is a major threat to them. 
Many important Open Source projects, such as Samba, StarOffice and 
Apache, need this information. To make it legal for Microsoft to 
withhold it is just wrong.
    Whatever else is in the settlement, I implore you to not impede 
or penalize Open Source developers.
    Please correct this egregiously wrong-headed wording.
    David A. De Graaf

[[Page 24382]]

    DATIX, Inc.
    Hendersonville, NC
    dad@datix.2y.net
    (828) 696-8646; fax (828) 694-1037



MTC-00003887

From: Arthur P. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m writing to express my views that the settlement proposal 
from the Department of Justice in the Microsoft anti-trust case is 
inadequate, and given past behavior by the company is almost certain 
to be ignored, circumvented, or used to further rather than to 
retard the monopolistic anti-competitive practices the company has 
been found guilty of. In particular there appear to be provisions 
that give the company additional advantages over the very 
competition that Microsoft has most recently cited as its most 
serious, namely the free or `open source' software 
movement, which has grown to a position of prominence in the server 
operating system and applications market with the popular Linux 
operating system, Apache web server, Sendmail mail software, Bind 
domain name servers, and thousands of other less prominent tools 
developed by the internet community.
    The philosophy of the companies and organizations that support 
these excellent tools is quite different from that of Microsoft: 
since the software itself is freely available, the intellectual 
property and licensing issues are very different, and companies like 
RedHat and recently even IBM have been quite successful doing 
business on the support and packaging side. And some of the 
organizations providing support are even not-for-profit, such as the 
Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, funded 
by contributions from other companies and organizations that find 
their work useful.
    But the proposed agreement includes strong language (Section 
III(J)(2), I have been told, and III(D)) that appears to exclude any 
requirement for Microsoft to work with these not-for-profit 
organizations, or any company that doesn`t meet standards 
`established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business'.
    As a non-profit publishing organization receiving contributions 
from authors throughout the US and around the world, we have long 
been plagued by the obscure nature of Microsoft`s document product 
line, which appears to have been deliberately constructed in ways 
that make it not only extremely difficult to inter-operate with 
other vendor`s software, but even with different versions of itself 
(Word on Macintosh vs. Windows, the many different versions of 
Windows, the many different versions of Word itself). In my personal 
estimation these problems are currently costing our organization on 
the order of $1 million per year in hand-work required to either 
process paper versions of these documents, or in addressing and 
attempting to fix incompatibilities in the differing electronic 
versions we receive, to convert to our final XML publishing format. 
Almost all of that cost could be saved if Microsoft`s document 
formats were less deliberately obscure, and more openly available 
and easily interoperable with other publishing formats.
    Microsoft`s monopoly power has severe negative consequences for 
us in this one area, but I know there are many others who are 
affected even more severely. It was our hope that the anti-trust 
trial, which exposed considerable wrong-doing by the company, would 
result in remedies that would provide us some relief. This appears 
not to be the case, unless the proposed agreement is significantly 
amended.
    Thank you for listening to my complaints,
    Arthur Smith (apsmith@aps.org)
    The American Physical Society
    631-591-4072



MTC-00003888

From: David Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I have used computers in my dental practice since the early 
80`s, and there is no question in my mind that this issue has 
nothing to do with protecting the public, and everything to do with 
protecting those companies that have tried to employ business 
practices that were and still are more detrimental to the consumer 
than Microsoft will ever be.
    In 1980 I connected two computers with a Novel network and it 
cost me $10,000. If I had used Apply hardware it would have been an 
additional $20,000. As soon as Microsoft entered the arena, I was 
able to connect seven computers for about $1,200. Also because of 
the inexpensive operating system Microsoft has made available, I can 
buy a computer for less than $1,000, I can`t do that with Sun, or 
Apple. My prospective is `from the trenches', and I know 
beyond any doubt that Microsoft has benefited my business 
immeasurably. It is my belief that this entire action has no basis 
and has been an embarrassment it our government.
    Sincerly,
    David S. Williams DDS, MSD
    http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00003889

From: Ozymandias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me start this out by saying 2 things. First off, I`m a 
computer repair technician and I`ve been working on computers since 
I was 8, I`m now 28. Secondly, I`ll try to keep this short, but I 
don`t know how successful I`ll be in that respect.
    This settlement that has been reached with Microsoft is totally 
unacceptable. They can and will find a way around it just like they 
have in the past. For example, when they were told to take the web 
browser Internet Explorer out of the Operating System install 
(Windows 95c), they integrated it with the Operating System (Windows 
98 and later).
    Since Windows 3.1 they have been using their Operating System to 
unfairly leverage consumers to use their products. The first plainly 
obvious sign of this is with an icon on their desktop taking the 
user to MSN internet. The only way that icon could be removed was by 
going into the registry and manually removing it. Most of the time 
the things they did were more obscure until they realized they could 
get away with it and noone stepped in to stop it.
    With Office 97, even if you had your default browser set to 
something else. Whatever office product you were using would open 
Internet Explorer as it`s browser.
    Windows 98 is so tightly integrated with Internet Explorer now 
that if there`s a problem with the browser, the system has a 
problem. Let`s go deeper than the browser here though. For example, 
I run linux as my operating system of choice due to the way 
Microsoft treats their customers, but there are still things I must 
do on Windows. So I use a product called VMWare that allows me to 
install an OS in a virtual machine setting. I happen to have 3 
copies of Windows 98 one of them being one of their latest releases 
of Second Edition. The way it is designed I can not use it under a 
virtual machine environment because it would allow the system to 
read the disk, while earlier versions will. These are intentional 
acts, of that I`m sure and little things of this nature should be/
have been investigated.
    Windows NT is the biggest mess I`ve seen. For the server to sit 
there and run it`s sevices, I must install a browser. Why must a 
server that does nothing but offer out files, websites, mail and the 
like have to have a browser installed? There is no reason for this 
sort of thing to be needed. It would be simple enough to just 
install the files that are needed and not the entire browser.
    Windows 2000, Everything is so proprietary that a repair 
technician can barely work on the machine. Microsoft has become 
secure in it`s dominance and has come to grips that the Government 
(specifically the DOJ) doesn`t understand, care, or even realize 
what they are doing. They are also showing how sure they are that 
noone will step in to take action against them.
    Windows XP. This was blatantly a power play. First off, they 
have put to many `features' in this OS to compete head 
to head with so many of the smaller companies. Winzip? don`t need 
it, it`s now in the computer already.
    CD burning software? Don`t need it either, it`s be put in the 
system. Except for the fact that you don`t have a copy CD function. 
PCAnywhere for remote control of the machine? Don`t need it either, 
it`s in the system already.
    This is just a tip of the iceburg for Windows XP. It`s clear 
they are using their Operating System to force and mislead the 
public to using more of their products. Such as hailstorm 
(passport), .Net, and MSN internet. When you first install XP, it 
PURPOSELY misleads the user that they NEED a passport account to be 
able to use XP. This is the start of what they are trying to do with 
.Net and pay to use their software. You`ll also note that even with 
the fact that for years if they were going to put the MSN icon on 
the desktop they had to put other online services there as well. 
You`ll note that in Windows XP nothing is on the desktop. Instead, 
in the start menu there is MSN, but no other `Online 
Services'.

[[Page 24383]]

    In the interest of keeping this short I left a huge number of 
things out. But it all comes to the same point that Microsoft WILL 
use this settlement to their advantage because it is entirely too 
soft. There are already glaring loopholes in it that will allow them 
to further their monopoly into other markets such as schools. This I 
find unacceptable because this forces my tax dollars to feed 
Microsoft`s caufers.
    I stopped using Microsoft products for several reasons the 
biggest being that they DO force or mislead people into using more 
of their products. They always have and always will until they are 
stopped by legislation or legal judgements. That is where it has 
been left up to you to make sure that there are no loopholes and 
that they are strongly punished for what they are doing.
    As I see it, this settlement has done nothing of that sort. It 
will only allow microsoft to grow stronger and more bold in what 
they are doing. It should have been obvious when they were trying to 
hold back the settlement to release Windows XP. Instead they 
released XP a little early to make sure they were able to get it on 
the market. I, for one, and very disappointed in my government 
because they have allowed this to go on and the poor settlement 
which has been reached. I want to see this dropped. I would also 
like to see the DOJ and the 9 states that settled join forced with 
the 9 states that did not. Simply because the 9 states that did not 
settle are on the right track.
    The are plenty of specialists and very knowledgeable people out 
there that can and will give information needed to prove, beyond a 
shadow of a doubt, that Microsoft has, can, and will continue to 
leverage their Operating Systems to further their purposes.
    Attached is an article that I`m sure you will find interesting. 
And this just helps to prove my point, and the original point behind 
this case.
    CC:gasp@scrserv.com @inetgw,nox@ 
scrserv.com@inetgw



MTC-00003890

From: Dave Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:38pm
Subject: Please settle this case....
    It is fair and we all need to move forward. AOL and SUNW may not 
agree but they are the only ones complaining. The states just want 
money out of MSFT. They should learn to run state budgets better and 
stop trying to shake down companies.
    The US Goverment spend more money on MSFT then it did Bin Laden. 
Now they are going to protect us against MSFT? That money should be 
used to protect US Citizen and not trying to put companies out of 
business.
    Dave Brookes
    2220 Montgomery Ave.
    Cardiff, CA 92007
    Thank you.....



MTC-00003891

From: Evil Mr Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed the Microsoft Antitrust case for a while now, 
and have an idea for the settlement. This idea comes from several 
unrelated news items. First of all, Microsoft has decided to stop 
supporting DOS and Windows 3.1 (and will stop supporting other 
products in the years to come); next, Microsoft has put 
`Product Activation' in Windows XP; and finally is the 
actual antitrust case.
    When Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP, people will no 
longer be able to use it legally due to the product activation and 
so will be forced to upgrade to the newest wersion of Windows thanks 
to a product defect.
    My proposal is this: If Microsoft decides to stop supporting a 
product, they must releise the source code to that product and allow 
people to change it. If this is adopted, it will be impossible for 
Microsoft to force users to upgrade their version of Windows. In the 
above example, a person who could not use Windows XP due to the 
product activation would be able to download a patch to remove that 
`feature' (generated almost as soon as the source code 
became available) once Microsoft stops supporting Windows XP. This 
by no means should be the only action against Microsoft, but it will 
help destroy their monopoly in the operating system field using 
their own products as compitition. Thank you for considering this 
option.



MTC-00003892

From: Bill Richardsn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    As usual your justice and allegations are misguided and 
inappropriate. Would you also defile the sanctity of all 
Intellectual property as monopolistic and predatory? How in a world 
with freedom to innovate can you be so blatantly non-objective? 
Would you also expose the formula for Coca-Cola and Colonel Sanders 
11 Secret Herbs and Spices? If so what freedom to innovate would I 
as an Internet software developer have to protect my interests? 
Because I find a niche market and take advantage of it am I 
predatory? Is the effervescent struggle between Coca-Cola and Pepsi 
the next target for your insane jealousies and obvious favoritism 
for Sen. Oren Hatch`s and Time Warner`s Quest for more dollars and 
favoritism because their product is without Office applications and 
without a viable desktop graphical operating system? Is this fair? 
No it is predatory with respect to you and your quest.
    Sincerely,
    William `Bill' Richardson
    Cheif Operating Officer
    Richcorp, Inc. 
    CC:doj@microsoft.com@inetgw



MTC-00003893

From: Konrad Ko(FFFF)odziejczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`d like to settlement was accepted because Microsoft didn`t 
break law. Microsoft commingling Internet Explorer with Windows 
isn`t illegal.



MTC-00003894

From: DnldPratt@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is hard to understand how Microsoft can be judged guilty and 
then be given such a light penalty. In fact the proposed settlement 
looks more like a creation of Microsoft`s marketing department than 
any kind of deterrent to monopolistic practices. Even with the minor 
changes announced today this settlement boosts Microsoft`s position 
in the education market, one of the few areas that it has any 
serious competition.
    Both Apple and Linux are very effectively blocked by this 
decisions. While Microsoft entrenches itself in an a market it has 
failed to master. Further the plan to allow used or refurbished 
equipment to be placed leverages Microsoft`s exploitation of the 
matter, boosting used PC prices while saddling schools with 
technology that will quickly become outmoded. No penalty would be a 
better solution that this government sponsored marketing blitz.
    Don Pratt
    32 Ohio Ave
    W. Springfield, MA 01089



MTC-00003895

From: erik_nelson@freddiemac.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am deeply disturbed by the DOJ`s settlement with Microsoft. I 
feel that the proposed settlement does nothing to redress the abuses 
perpetrated by Microsoft in the past and is a disservice to U.S. 
consumers.
    The court case was won. Microsoft was declared a monopoly. Now, 
why are they getting let go without substantive penalty? They have 
shown their recidivist tendencies time and time again.
    I am concerned that the source of the decision to `go 
soft' on Microsoft after the case was won is a sign of this 
administration siding with business against the consumer. I have 
never voted for a Democrat in my life, but things like these make me 
upset enough that I will in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Nelson



MTC-00003896

From: root@idscc05.onewest.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    The following is my comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I care about one thing, and wish to see it abolished by 
the settlement.
    My concern is the agreements between Microsoft and suppliers of 
hardware peripheral equipment (such as modems, printers, scanners 
etc.) that have the effect of keeping secret the command-codes 
needed to write drivers for these peripherals.
    I have had to buy a new modem and a new printer and a new TV 
card to use with Linux, because Linux cannot support the ones that 
came with my system_ because the free software community is 
frozen out of the information needed to write the drivers for these 
peripheral units.

[[Page 24384]]

    I have been damaged personally by the practice of keeping these 
drivers a proprietary secret between Microsoft and the peripheral 
suppliers who make these deals.
    I will not besatisfied with the settlement unless and until it 
specifically precludes Microsoft from using its dominant market 
position to limit competition by making and keeping such deals to 
restrict information on the command-codes needed to write the 
drivers for computer peripheral equipment.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis O. Donnelly



MTC-00003897

From: eschmidt@obik.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I hope you have been receiving a lot of informational email 
regarding the DOJ vs. Microsoft case. This is an important case, and 
I am very disappointed in the proposed settlement, as are most of my 
colleagues. I have worked in the IT industry for 9 years, and have 
seen first-hand the negative effects of Microsoft`s predatory 
pricing and marketing tactics. I think it is important to remember 
that Microsoft has been found guilty of violation of antitrust laws, 
and should pay a steep price, a much steeper price than is proposed.
    I suggest you read the following articles/opinions, in which the 
flaws of this settlement are discussed. The list is by no means 
complete, just a small sampling from various IT sites. It has 
actually been rather startling how the IT industry as a whole 
condemns this settlement; the question of litigation years ago was 
much more contentious. Of course, it has become clearer through the 
years that Microsoft has broken the law.
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2827338,00.html
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2827122,00.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22711.html
    http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2826633,00.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22684.html
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/11/02/
microsoft_settlement/index.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22647.html
    Erich Schmidt
    Director of Technology
    Obik LLC
    http://www.obik.com/



MTC-00003898

From: Tom Kornack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Everyone can agree that monopolies are bad for the nation. The 
Microsoft settlement does not punish microsoft in any meaningful way 
and goes a long way towards increasing their stranglehold on the 
market by allowing them to flood the schools with their products. In 
donating their software to schools that would not normally purchase 
the software, they lose virtually no money. Software costs pennies 
to copy and yet they will say that it adds up to billions of 
dollars. Not so. The punishment should not exonerate them and allow 
them to go further down their path of incompatibility and 
exclusionary market tactics. Other commerical and open source 
software that interoperates with Microsoft software needs to be 
embraced, not killed by this settlement. Please seek real punishment 
for Microsoft. They have a monopoly and this settlement does nothing 
to control it.
    Regards,
    Tom Kornack
    Los Alamos National Laboratory, TA-3, SM-1586, 
RM-109
    505-665-1939 (o), 609-577-7609 (m), 
505-672-4140 (h)
    73 Joya Loop, White Rock, NM 87544
    kornack.com



MTC-00003899

From: Bo Turnbow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I write to express my discontent with the current settlement 
proposal for the Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe the proposed 
measures fall far short of punishments necessary to rein in 
Microsoft`s monopolistic activities. In fact, the nature of the 
settlement appears to gloss over the fact that Microsoft was found 
GUILTY of violating anti-trust laws and therefore harmed its 
competitors.
    In my opinion, an adequate settlement would punish Microsoft for 
its past behaviors and compensate the companies, technologies, and 
users who were harmed as a result of Microsoft`s harmful practices. 
The current settlement does none of these things and appears to be a 
`wristslap'. Microsoft must provide source code for both 
its operating system and internet browser to its competitors to 
strip it of the advantages it gained by its harmful. There also must 
be significant behavioral controls (with penalties) to guard against 
future anti-trust violations. Microsoft is still benefiting greatly 
from the advantages it gained by unlawful actions. This must be 
punsihed!
    Signed,
    Bo Turnbow
    Tempest Technologies, LLC
    Reserve Financial Center
    400 North Park Avenue
    Helena, MT 59624
    Voice: (406) 495-8731
    Fax: (406) 443-8083
    boturnbow@tempesttech.com
    http://www.tempesttech.com



MTC-00003900

From: Ben Rosengart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am gravely concerned about the flaws in the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I do not feel that the settlement 
effectively addresses the issues. It allows Microsoft to keep the 
fruits of their crimes, and it will not hinder them from 
perpetrating similar crimes in the future.
    Reams of analysis of the settlement have been written in the 
weeks since it was disclosed. Rather than rewrite what`s already 
been written well by others, I prefer to supply you with some 
pointers. CNet has some excellent analysis here: http://
news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7765151.html?tag=nbs 
Robert X. Cringely makes some salient points about halfway down this 
page: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html I am a 
systems administrator for Public Access Networks Corp., aka Panix, a 
small internet service provider in New York City. Computer software 
is my livelihood and also a hobby. As a computing professional with 
a passing familiarity with law, I urge you to reconsider this 
settlement.
    You have every chance of imposing real remedies on Microsoft. If 
you do so, I predict that you will see a real resurgence in the 
computing parts of the economy. There are a lot of good ideas and 
strong businesses that can arise when the market is free of 
monopolistic distortions.
    Thank you for reading this message.
    Ben
    `When I say `literally`, I literally mean 
`literally`.'



MTC-00003901

From: Spilger Philip G (Phil) PSNS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 12:58pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement: Individual Public Comment
    I feel the settlement reached with the Department of Justice and 
nine of the plaintiff states is a fair and reasonable compromise 
that is good for consumers and will be good for the economy. The 
proposal filed recently by the other states, is extreme and not 
commensurate with what is left of the case. The Court of Appeals 
decision drastically narrowed the liability issues and provides the 
best roadmap as we move forward with these remedy proceedings
    Phil
    Phone: (360) 476-2202
    E-Mail: spilgerp@psns.navy.mil



MTC-00003902

From: Tracey Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 12:58pm
Subject: Anti-trust Case
    I have been continually amazed at the amount of public funds 
being wasted to bring down a company that has helped spur the 
economy and growth of our nation as much or more than any other in 
the last three decades. Software is a fluid product. Being a 
developer, I can tell you that there is no monopoly to be had in 
software. A new stab at a product is always just around the corner 
and even a large successful company like Microsoft could easily miss 
being the one to bring such innovation to market. It has happened 
before, and will likely happen again. IBM had a firm lock on the 
computer industry and, in fact, seeing the opportunities for profit 
was among the first in the PC market. They blew it. IBM. They lost 
to an upstart company (Microsoft). This is the way

[[Page 24385]]

of this business. Old anti-trust arguments do not so easily apply.
    I say get this whole business behind us and stop spending public 
money to damage our market place.
    Tracey Wade
    Technical Advisor
    x6118
    The information in this email and in any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please destroy this message, delete any copies held on 
your systems and notify the sender immediately. You should not 
retain, copy or use this email for any purpose, nor disclose all or 
any part of its content to any other person.



MTC-00003903

From: Bill Shepherd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement and anti-trust suit by DOJ;
    Sirs,
    The settlement in the MSFT vs. DOJ (or MSFT v.s. cryin 
competitors) was, on its face, ludicrous. Since it was seen fit to 
allow the decision of a judge who, at best, was in grave error stand 
and dameliorate the situation with a lesser penalty and MSFT agreed 
to it, let it stand.
    The positions of the states in opposition smack of money 
grubbing. I am reminded of sharks circling an injured fish. There 
seems to be some easy blood and flesh to glean for little or no 
efort. The fact that those states have nothing in the way of injury 
to that state to tie the amounts of the fine to merely highlights 
the sense of lusting after free money.
    If the prople were damaged, damages should go to the people 
damaged, not to a fovernment who will further damage them. If there 
is a settlement to ber elicited then it should go to those who 
purchased the software in question. I fail to see where the percent 
damage can be refunded in the case of Explorer, since it was free 
anyway, and still is, including it in the operating system cannot be 
the actual source of damage. In my mind it is the sole concern of 
the manufacturer whether he includes the engine in the car as a part 
of the car, or charges for each and every bolt and part separately. 
The only determinant of success would be the consumer who would then 
immediately go to the manufacturer that did not follow this 
practice. I would think that this analogy would be fairly simple for 
the learned folks of the judicial system, even those august 
determiners of our fate, the judges we have place our faith in.
    The entire process sickens me. Let it stand as is or vacate the 
entire thing as a frivolous and predjudicial action on its face. I, 
for one, have lost a tremendous amount of faith in our system as it 
has evolved. What has made us great is our freeedom to innovate. 
This is set to undermine and destroy that freedom as well as others. 
It is time we returned to our freedoms before we are all totally 
enslaved by the controls of a bloated government and a legal system 
that has so many laws that nothing is legal and everything is legal, 
depending on the skills and misdirection abilities of the legal 
argument smiths and courtroom thespians. MSFT simply spends more 
money, time and effort on development and ennovation than the 
others. This resultls in some real bombs and some great successes. 
When they bomb they don`t mel about and blame SUN and ORACLE, thye 
just continue on to compete. The thingsd they have done are well 
within the guidlines of business taught in our business schools such 
as Harvard an others thought to be great institutions of learning. 
They are good, solid business practices. In fact, a blind man can 
see that the very practices complained against were, as the case 
drug on, being blatantly practice by many of the plaintifs in the 
case.
    Let it stand and get on with life.
    Yours,
    William R. Shepherd



MTC-00003904

From: Thomas Streeter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft case, in particular to object to provisions that give 
Microsoft the power to exclude nonprofit software producers from its 
obligations to disclose APIs (e.g., Section III (J) (2): 
`...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...') . As you know, nonprofit software has long 
been and continues to be central to the information economy; it 
produced the internet, for example. In the interests of consumers 
and the health of the economy as a whole, I urge you to change the 
language of the sections to unequivocally include nonprofit software 
producers.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Streeter
    Sociology Dept.
    University of Vermont
    31 So. Prospect St.
    Burlington, VT 05405 USA
    802 656-2167; fax 802 656-2131
    thomas.streeter@uvm.edu; http://www.uvm.edu/�7Etstreete



MTC-00003905

From: Thomas, Stuart P_Raleigh, NC
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever receives this:
    I have scant spare time, but this is important. I am VERY 
displeased with the settlement against Microsoft, and VERY 
disappointed in the Justice Department.
    Microsoft was found guilty, plain and simple. Their punishment 
equates to being forced to `play fair' in the future, 
but applies NO PENALTY for past wrong-doing. That is NOT justice. It 
does go to show you that you can get away with anything if you have 
enough money to buy off the government, as Microsoft did by heavily 
funding both Republican and Democratic parties. I
    could be a lot more eloquent and say a LOT more about this, but 
my spare minute is up now. Thank you for hearing me out. I hope you 
all sleep horribly at night.
    Stuart Thomas
    Long-time federal employee, taxpayer, and registered voter



MTC-00003906

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:11pm
Subject: The Settlement in Perspective
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I have followed this case for years and have read many of the 
documents including Judge Jackson`s Findings and Ruling, the Appeals 
Court 125-page document and the latest Settlement documents. I have 
written everyone from Presidents Clinton and Bush to my Senators and 
Congressmen about my feelings about this case. One thing stands out 
in my mind. In the past when I wrote public officials with my 
feelings that this case is overblown and that it was time to move 
beyond it I was told that it is `A MATTER STRICTLY FOR THE 
COURTS'. Now we have public hearings. So once more I will 
voice my opinion but I fail to understand why there should be more 
hoopla surrounding this matter at this time just as I fail to see 
why the State Attorneys General continue to insist on separate 
positions. It seems to me that they derailed the conclusion of this 
case at least twice to date by their divisive and self-serving 
behavior. Each time the States have delayed the conclusion of this 
matter there have been coincident drops in the stock market and 
blows to the economy. A true coincidence? I seriously think not.
    Let`s get this matter into perspective with past cases where 
consumers or commercial customers may have actually suffered from 
corporate activities. Between the economic and non-economic 
challenges that this nation faces today we seem to have a 
disproportionate effort spent on this effort not to mention the 
waste of taxpayer money at the federal and state levels for legal 
proceedings. I strenuously urge you to lend your voices to the voice 
of reason and move forward with the existing settlement as it 
stands. Hopefully the nation can still capitalize on Microsoft`s 
offer to contribute a billion dollars of goods and services to our 
school systems although it looks as though the pending Apple 
litigation makes that less likely every day. Let`s put our national 
efforts where they are truly needed and not on such silly measures 
as controversy about `the tying of the browser to the 
operating system'. Try saying that in the same sentence or 
paragraph as `the collapse of the World Trade Center' 
and you can`t help see some of the triviality.
    Respectfully,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00003907

From: hal King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see Steve Satchell become one of the three-
member committee responsible for keeping watch over Microsoft.
    If Microsoft can control who has access to Windows` interface 
and API specifications,

[[Page 24386]]

they can control what software can work with Windows. This limit 
extends to other computers that must network with the computer 
runnning Windows. Allowing sections III(J)(2) and III(D) would 
effectively allow Microsoft (who controls a majority of the desktop 
computers in the U.S.) to further limit their competition.
    hal king
    Unix System Group/The University of Tennessee at Knoxville
    pgp key http://web.utk.edu/�7Ehck/hal.asc



MTC-00003908

From: Jones, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Renata B. Hesse,
    Persistent to the Tunney Act I hereby reserve and exercise my 
right to comment on the proposed settlement. I understand The Tunney 
Act procedures require the United States to:
    1. File a proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact 
Statement (CIS) with the court.
    2. Publish the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal 
Register.
    3. Publish notice of the proposed Final Judgment in selected 
newspapers.
    4. Accept comments from the public for a period of 60 days after 
the proposed Final Judgment is published in the Federal Register.
    5. Publish the comments received, along with responses to them, 
in the Federal Register.
    6. File the comments received and responses to them with the 
court.
    This proposed settlement is a victory for Microsoft(MS) and slap 
on the face to the American people. We the people have been taken 
advantage of by the monopolistic position of MS, and have blindly 
placed our interests and trust in the hands of Department of Justice 
to settle it this case within our interests. Once again, you have 
failed us! As a computer professional, to this day I still see the 
monopolistic position of MS bullying its competition. I was in a 
computer store this weekend asking for Linux software when the sales 
person told me that Microsoft forbid them to sell the Linux 
operating system and compatible software, they (MS) 
`..suggested that their resellers license be revoked'.. 
if they did.
    It`s obvious that the Department of Justice interests are not 
that of the American people, and we have been taken advantage of 
again. MS should be required to give away the operating system and 
application software (at the same rate they have been forcing us to 
upgrade for the next 25 years), open their source, and guarantee 
backward compatibility with all future products forever. As well as 
return at least 25% of the illegal monies they have collected from 
the American people. Then be held strictly accountable for future 
actions. Anything less is a victory to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Larry Jones
    2398 Madison St SE
    Albany, Oregon 97321
    (541) 924-9341



MTC-00003909

From: Michael Paul Everson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:21pm
Subject: Settling With Microsoft
    Microsoft has repeatedly abused its position and ignored 
government restrictions. Their greatest skill has always been the 
subtlety of their deceit. If the DOJ really wants to make this 
situation change, it needs exact severe penalties for any 
transgression. These penalties need to be clearly defined so that we 
don`t just end up back in court.
    Microsoft must be forced to separate their operating system and 
application businesses. While these can exist in the same company 
the information exchange between these department must be in the 
public record. Too often in the past Microsoft has used its time to 
market advantage from deals worked out between these groups. Given 
the dominance of the Windows operating system, this must be enforced 
for the benefit of the market as a whole.
    There must also be a mechanism for third-parties to request 
enhancements that there products require. The review of these 
requests must be made in a public forum to make sure they are given 
equitable consideration. While the economy is in a slump right now, 
we cannot sacrifice the future of our technology for a quick fix. 
The freedom to innovate and have equitable access to the market is 
essential to our continuing prosperity.
    Michael P. Everson
    Distributed Systems Architect
    Orcades Informative Consulting Ltd
    231 East 46th Ave, Vancouver, BC, CANADA V5W 1Z5
    phn:+1 (604) 671-7016 fax:+1 (604) 730-5422 
email:michael@orcades.com
    http://www.orcades.com



MTC-00003910

From: Luby, Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all due respect to the DOJ Anti-trust department, this case 
should have never been pursued in the first place. I thought that 
anti-trust legislation was to protect the consumer, not to appease 
competitors that are losing in the marketplace. Has Microsoft always 
been a perfect angel? I don`t think so. Microsoft should face no 
penalties that involve changes to their product or by 
`releasing' information about their source code. The 
future of computing is not a bunch of different systems that aren`t 
compatible but a global network of computers seamlessly exchanging 
information. Microsoft is working on this goal.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas F. Luby



MTC-00003911

From: George Lenzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:27pm
Subject: Current Settlement adds more strength to the Microsoft 
Monopoly
    While the donations that Microsoft proposes, sound generous on 
the surface, they really aren`t giving anything more than further 
dependence on Microsoft products. It would be a shame to see 
Microsoft get off with just a `slap on the wrist', while 
the people who were hurt by Microsoft`s practices get no reparations 
whatsoever. A better course of action would be to have Microsoft 
fund (with no strings attached) companies that are developing 
alternatives to their products. This would level the playing field 
(which is really what all of this is about) unlike their current 
proposal. I am opposed to seeing Microsoft go unpunished for their 
actions against other companies. They`ve gotten by time and time 
again, but there is an opportunity to change this now. I have no 
desire to see Microsoft lose it`s footing in the computer industry, 
but I waould like to see more successful alternatives.
    Thanks,
    George H. Lenzer
    Owner
    D.L. Media
    1348 Cohassett Place
    Lakewood, Ohio 44107
    Voice_(216) 228-7481



MTC-00003912

From: Craig W Gold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:43pm
Subject: DOJ
    I think you are sending a bad signal by letting corruption run 
rampant. You should be ashamed. Are you all just so many common 
criminals with no sense of right and wrong? Does big money buy off 
the DOJ just like that?
    I do not respect the DOJ any more.



MTC-00003913

From: Barb Keough
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 12/10/01 1:37pm
Subject: Please Don`t Punish Apple for the sins of Microsoft!
    Please Don`t Do It!
    I understand that the justice department is planning to hand 
over a substantial portion of the Education market to the Windows 
platform by replacing Macs with Windows computers. This is 
supposedly to punish Microsoft for being a monopoly that does not 
play fair??? How do you figure that? I use Macintosh (Apple) 
computers. It is a wonderful platform. It has done nothing wrong! 
Why are you punishing Apple?? I am in the design industry and 
Macintosh (Apple) is the only platform that I want to use. Please 
don`t hand over the Educational Market to the Windows platform!!! 
This proposed settlement gives Microsoft a big boost in a market 
segment they have been unable to dominate_one which Apple has 
a razor thin majority right now. Why is the court ready to kill a 
substantial portion of Apple`s market and hand it to Microsoft? How 
does this punish Microsoft?? Why are you punishing Apple?
    I am writing to you because I am told that you are dedicated to 
continuing with more effective anti-trust remedies.

[[Page 24387]]

    I`d be interested in your thoughts and actions regarding this 
issue.
    Thank you
    Barbara Keough
    Buffalo, NY



MTC-00003914

From: Craig W Gold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:44pm
Subject: Fw: DOJ
    Mister Ashcroft:
    Make that WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS which are the worst in my 
opinion. Only for green and not out of need do these and people like 
you exist. Crooks in suits !!!! You all stink. I hope you have to 
use Windows your entire life !!!
    I think you are sending a bad signal by letting corruption run 
rampant. You should be ashamed. Are you all just so many common 
criminals with no sense of right and wrong? Does big money buy off 
the DOJ just like that? I do not respect the DOJ any more.



MTC-00003915

From: Earle Nietzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:43pm
Subject: My vote in favor of Red Hat`s DOJ propsal
    Why would we not want to put a free OS on PC`s that can be used 
to teach.
    ALL UNIVERSITIES DO IT...
    Earle Nietzel
    4 Club Lane
    Rock Hill, NY 12775
    or
    earle.nietzel@unisys.com



MTC-00003916

From: Jeffrey Melton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am deeply alarmed by the terms of the current settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I feel there are 
serious flaws which further Microsoft`s monopoly power and even 
reward them for their anti-competitive practices. Microsoft was 
found guilty and should make amends to the customers and companies 
they abused.
    In particular, Microsoft`s offer to donate more $1 billion in 
software, services, training and refurbished computers to poor 
schools around the country will actually further their reach into a 
market they don`t yet dominate. Rather than serve as a punishment 
for them, this `gift' would grow their market share, 
squeeze out other companies such as Apple (which has given a lot to 
the educational sector), and increase the overall dependence on 
Microsoft products_all at the expense of citizens. Microsoft 
has essentially guaranteed itself that much in sales in free 
advertising with this offer. Also, the cost to Microsoft wouldn`t 
total nearly $1 billion in brand new, quality software and services.
    Instead, I recommend that $1 billion cash be used to create an 
endowment fund, administered by a non-profit, public foundation 
which would distribute that money to schools and organizations to 
use on alternative computer operating systems and 
services_specifically NOT Microsoft`s. The foundation could 
also invest a portion of that money to sustain the program for 
perpetuity and undo Microsoft`s domination which they seek to 
sustain. Also, the terms of the settlement don`t go far enough to 
protect customers and companies of non-profit products such as Linux 
which don`t get the same treatment and protection as for-profit 
companies. Thank You,
    jeffrey melton / http://www.nofi.org/index.shtml
    nofi design / p.o.box 10231 / fort wayne, IN / 46851-0231
    jmelton@nofi.org_email / 
1-312-660-3701 x2171_voicemail/fax
    `Technique is the differentiating force in all 
technologies.'



MTC-00003917

From: John Econopouly
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against this settlement. It will not do enough to curb 
Microsoft`s illegal practices.
    In my opinion there is no doubt that Microsoft has a monopouly 
on desktop OS`es, and no doubt that they have used it to gain 
illegal advantage over competitors, at the ultimate expense of 
consumers. They have lied and misled under oath to retain this 
unfair advantage, and the outcome of their trial was just. This 
settlement is far too lenient.
    At the very least, the language in Section III(J)(2) should be 
modified to not have a negative effect on free software 
initiatives_some of the major remaining competitors to 
Microsoft`s hegemony, and with obvious advantages for consumers. But 
really you should seek a more aggressive solution that will not be 
as open to interpretation as this one, such as breaking Microsoft 
up.



MTC-00003918

From: H Donehower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put the Microsoft Anti-Trust matter to bed. The 
Justice Department and the Federal Government should spend their 
time and effort on more important and pressing matters. Matters of 
National Security and World Wide Freedom. The Federal Government and 
individual States have gone overboard in the harassment of 
Microsoft. States with selfish interest in protecting their home 
based companies used flawed reasoning to pursue litigation against 
Microsoft. Our Federal Government with political bias campaigned 
against one of the companies that helps to continue our legacy as 
the home of the free with freedom to innovate. Bill Gates is an 
American patriot and has fostered freedom to innovate. His 
competitors wants to use politics to accomplish in the courtroom 
what they can`t achieve in the market place.
    Settle the matter. Get on with the more important business of 
protecting our nation from terrorism.
    H. Roy Donehower, Col., USMC (Retired)
    64631 E. Canyon Shadows Lane
    Tucson AZ 85739-2028
    520-825-1093



MTC-00003919

From: Tedha@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is wrong to persecute Microsoft. The general public has never 
been harmed by Microsoft`s business practices. The only winners in 
the Justice and states` case against Microsoft is Microsoft`s 
competitors. To say that the public would be better off if 
Microsoft`s competitors were able to be more competitive is a 
phantom. No one could possibly know what would happen if Microsoft`s 
competitors were better managed, more in tune with their markets, 
employees more motivated and more visionary. And yet the government 
has decided it does know the outcome of something that NEVER 
HAPPENED. What a farce!
    Compared to what IBM wanted to charge for OS/2, Microsoft has 
maintained a low price to the general PC user for its operating 
systems. To ensure the general user was able to utilize reliable 
sub-programs to the operating system, Microsoft has added and 
maintained features over the years. Microsoft`s success has 
primarily come from listening to its customers and providing what 
they wanted.
    Why is the government punishing one of the best managed 
manufacturers in the world...a company that listens to the consumer, 
a company that allows its employees to be owners, a visionary, risk-
taking, financially solid, world encompassing power for the US 
economy? No other reason than that Microsoft`s business competitors 
found the US government willing to do their work for them. There is 
greed in the halls of congress and Microsoft`s competitors are 
taking full advantage of it.



MTC-00003920

From: Pats413@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:53pm
Subject: stop the lawsuit
    The US economy should not be destroying companies that our 
economy depends on. The US lawsuit against Microsoft led the 
downfall of the stock market and continues to undermine our 
confidence in the economy and the Governments ability to lead.



MTC-00003921

From: HoTaxLady@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly suggest that Microsoft will be looked upon in a 
favorable way in this settlement. Microsoft has become a giant in 
its industry and maybe some of the business practices are illegal 
and too aggressive. All I know is that Microsoft does many good 
things in my surrounding communities (I am from Washington State). 
Microsoft has made many millionairs and has allowed many of its 
employees to become very wealthy. This contributed to more spending 
and has helped to drive the economy not just here. Microsoft has 
shared its wealth freely and I do not consider this company to be a 
greedy

[[Page 24388]]

corporation just looking after its very own wealth.
    By the way, I did notice that economies nationwide were going 
great until lawsuits with Microsoft came into the works. It seems to 
have upset many markets. Please do not do with Microsoft what has 
been done to AT&T when the divesture took place.
    Karin E. Ho, EA
    Business Accountant



MTC-00003922

From: Dino Chiesa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Tunney Act Feedback
    This case was a witch-hunt, and an example of activist 
government overstepping their responsibility and mandate. It should 
never have been pursued. The settlement snatches victory for the 
American people from the jaws of a seemingly certain defeat, created 
by Janet Reno and her incompetent administration.
    In more detail,
    1. I agree with the need for government oversight of monopoly, 
but this case stretched the law much too far. The US Government 
should refrain from engaging in product design, attempting to 
dictate which function should or should not be included in a 
particular product, particularly in an industry as young and dynamic 
as the computer software industry. The tying clause included in the 
original complaint was out of date almost by the time the first 
hearings were held. Healthy Competition, with its result being a 
goodly amount of corporate gore, is the foundation of strength for 
the American economy. Some companies are winners and some are losers 
in fair competition_in this way, the consumer benefits. By 
attempting to restrain Microsoft, government intervention in this 
case actually served to reduce competition rather than promote it.
    2. In retrospect, this case appears to have lived beyond its 
deserved life only because politicians and lawyers smelled money. 
They looked at the Tobacco settlement and decided that they would 
like a chance to extract a pound of flesh from Microsoft as well. 
The holdout of a few states continues to reflect this 
mindset_if there is money to be had, let`s go after it. The 
case was NEVER about the public good. The case NEVER demonstrated 
that consumers were harmed. It was ALWAYS about protecting companies 
that failed to compete effectively with Microsoft, local 
constituencies. It was about greed and egos of lawyers.
    3. If the government was really interested in promoting the 
consumer good, they would have bestowed a medal of honor upon 
Microsoft, one of America`s most admired companies and best 
employers, and builder of the World`s Best Software, by any 
reasonable metric. Microsoft succeeded to the extent it did, 
worldwide, because the company designs good products that people 
want to use, and distributes them in an efficient and effective 
manner. That the US Government, in times like these, would want to 
persecute such an American success story is beyond the pale.
    Absolutely shameful! Janet Reno should receive a dishonorable 
discharge, retroactively.
    Hail to George Bush and his Justice Department for putting and 
end to the foolishness and settling the case.
    Long live representative democracy, capitalism, and the American 
way!
    The opinions expressed in this email are my own, and not the 
opinions or position of my employer.
    DinoChiesa
    565 Audubon Av
    Pittsburgh PA 15228
    +1.412.563.0172



MTC-00003923

From: Joseph Schlecht
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit a comment about the proposed settlement 
between the Federal Government and Microsoft. In accordance with the 
Tuney Act, I request that the following comments, and any responses 
received, be published in the Federal Register and filed with the 
court.
    1. I do not believe that this settlement goes far enough to 
penalize Microsoft for the crimes it has committed. Microsoft is an 
illegal monopoly, this is a ruling by the courts of our great 
country.
    2. As a member of the free software community, I would like to 
make it known that the verbage contained in the proposed settlement, 
like Section III(J)(2), could possibly eliminate many free software 
projects. The verbage used is to Microsoft`s advantage, they will 
manipulate their ability to arbitrarily certify the authenticity and 
viability of a business to crush us (the free software community) 
like they have illegally crushed other competitors.
    These are two of the largest problems I have with the proposed 
settlement. Let their be no doubt, if this settlement is approved, 
consumers will not benefit in the long-run, they will be subjected 
to an even more intense monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Schlecht
    Student, North Dakota State University



MTC-00003924

From: PEDAMNER@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:02pm
Subject: settle this
    i believe a settlement is needce immedidatelly as this has 
dragged on too long. there are more important things to take care of 
and were it not for microsoft tghere probably be near the advances i 
hi-tech that we have today. i have never heard one complaint about 
the prices that windowsx wa too expensive. i don`t se where the 9 
states says that it is. if it wasw too expensive nobody woul but it. 
compare it to linux-who wants it. pedamner @aol.com



MTC-00003925

From: Petre Scheie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello-
    I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case is too favorable to Microsoft and 
will do little to prevent it from unfairly computer industry. 
Specifically, according to a recent article by Robert Cringley, 
(http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html): 
`Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet Microsoft`s criteria as a business: `...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...'�1A'
    I see no reason why Microsoft should be exempt from providing 
APIs, etc. only to business, and worse, only to 
businesses_it_deems as viable. Microsoft should be 
forced to publish its APIs, communication protocols and 
documentation for all to see. The current wording would, among 
others, allow Microsoft to not reveal those details to the 
government because it is not a business. And make no mistake, as it 
has shown repeatedly, Microsoft will try to 
exploit_every_loophole to its advantage.
    Thank you.
    Petre Scheie
    System Administrator



MTC-00003926

From: Dan Kloepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:03pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    The anti-trust settlement benefits to schools and libraries 
seems a lot like wnat was already being done by Microsoft through 
the Gates Foundation `grants' which were supposed to 
help poor institutions, and supply low cost assistance to others.
    A close look at the assistance reveals that the USDOJ should 
have consulted with both k-12 and public libraries to see that 
the `help' was minimal, the proposed new help would be 
even less effective, and probably provide more of a write off for 
Microsoft, thus being an additional smokescreen by Microsoft.
    I would suggest contacting representatives of all size public 
and K-12 libraries, and possibly the ALA www.ala.org. fora 
better picture of the failure of these processes to help K-2 
and public libraries, and their actual benefit to Microsoft.
    I would suggest you contact public librarians whoare members 
ofthe Suburban Library System in Suburban Chicago, such as my wife, 
Krista Kloepper to see how laughable the Gates Foundation and and 
later Microsoft assistance is.
    D Kloepper



MTC-00003927

From: Steven H. Steinberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached is fine and should be put in place so 
that we can move on. There is much to much input from Sun, Oracle, 
and AOL going on. The court should

[[Page 24389]]

rule the settlement finished and tell the other states where to go.
    Steven H. Steinberg



MTC-00003928

From: Al BAdger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Government has gone far too far in its involvement in this 
case. The Government should not be in the business of edicting how 
software is designed. Anyone who did not like Microsoft products 
could have voted with their hard drives and purchased Apple or O/
S-2 or any of the other competition. They didn`t because 
Microsoft had a better product and I have used it for years, as well 
as several of their competition`s. So what if Microsoft gave the 
customer a better deal by including a free browser? We the customer 
got the free browser and the best overall operating systems on the 
market over the years.If you had ever tried to piece together 
software designed by disparate vendors before windows you would 
understand the miracle they accomplished.
    The governments interests in protecting the people would be far 
better served by investigating the patronage that goes on throughout 
its many branches both State and Federal where we pay for the best 
qualified person to be hired and get instead some unqualified hack 
and then pay again because we have to actually hire someone to do 
the work.
    Start with the Massachusetts State government, Logan Airport and 
the Massachusetts `Pork' Authority! We the taxpayer lost 
thousands of our fellow citizens, and Billions of dollars because of 
patronage at Logan airport and apparent incompetence of the FAA. 
Spend some time looking at where the real problems are in our 
society, and leave Bill Gates alone! He should praised for his 
accomplishments in stimulating the economy and expanding the world 
wide trade opportunities you are now stifling; not castigated by an 
out of touch government.
    Albert A. Badger
    70 Fletcher Street
    Winchester MA 01890



MTC-00003929

From: Ken Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:57pm
Subject: i disagree with settlement
    Microsoft should be broken up. Period.



MTC-00003930

From: Ken Kern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:00pm
Subject: microsoft in the schools
    are you guys crazy...this is just what MS wants. Think for a 
second, it increases their user base...which increases sales. Here 
is another solution, make MS buy the hardware for a linux or Apple 
installation in all the schools, to increase competition.



MTC-00003931

From: Laura Solomon
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 2:12pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    There are two problems here. By giving Microsoft the opportunity 
to settle through donating software to schools, Firstly, Microsoft 
is further strengthening their monopoly by giving the school 
software that will insure further dependence on Microsoft products. 
The second problem is that this settlement does nothing to make 
reparations for the undue damage that their business practices have 
caused to rivals. Giving away a few thousand copies of software that 
will lead to new purchases of their products, is not going to level 
the playing field. Microsoft is an important piece of the US 
economy, but it shouldn`t be the biggest one if it means sacrificing 
options to use other software from other companies.
    Laura Solomon
    Webmaster
    Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library
    2345 Lee Road
    Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118
    voice: (216)932-3600 ext.294 fax: (216) 932-0932
    http://www.heightslibrary.org/
    `It is not necessary to change. Survival is not 
mandatory.'_Edward Deming



MTC-00003932

From: Larry Lundquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have watched the case involving Microsoft and am dismayed with 
the twists and turns that have enveloped the case. In any business 
enviornment, the ability to innovate is critical to growth and well-
being of a company. When one is a leader in a field, such as 
Microsoft, the competion is intererested in disabling the advantages 
a company has. The crime involves anti-trust issues, (there is some 
question as to guilt) the penalities should involve perhaps changing 
of sales practices, cash, and mabey (this is also questionable) 
trading of product; something other than the elimination of 
innovation.
    Microsofts product is software code. When one must reveal 
software code and make adjustments that allow competitors to embed 
their software into Microsoft software, it is silly. With software, 
code separates a poor product from a good product. Most companies 
would love to take other companies software code and add it to their 
own code. Inovation is the creation of new good code in the software 
industry, and when states ask for this innovation to be revealed to 
competitors, it makes no sense.
    Enough is enough.
    Larry Lundquist
    Bellevue, Washington
    CC:lljudie@qwest.net@inetgw



MTC-00003933

From: art_frame@mac.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    The proposed settlement for the private law suits against 
Microsoft has an interesting angle to it. Microsoft cheats consumers 
of millions of dollars and the remedy is to give the money to an 
undefined group of schools instead of the people who were initially 
wronged. The `it`s for the children' routine is getting 
a little bit old. If Microsoft is so worried about the 
`children' then let them be magnanimous with their own 
money. The money that should go to the consumers should go to the 
consumers.
    This is like a car accident where the guilty party offers to buy 
every kid on the block an ice cream cone instead of paying for the 
damage that was done to the other car. If I were the guilty party, 
I`d think it a `sweet deal'. If I were the offended 
party, I`d be outraged.
    Speaking of `sweet deals'... ... if I decided to 
cheat on my income taxes and got caught (mind you_I`d only do 
this if I were actually caught cheating_just like Microsoft) 
could I buy my way out of the trouble by donating a bunch of my old 
worthless (I mean re-furbished) computer equipment to poor kids, 
too? Maybe even give them a few programs I`ve written but charge 
them full retail while I`m at it??????? After all, Microsoft may get 
to set just such a precedence.
    Aren`t you guys getting tired of having Microsoft tell YOU what 
they will or will not do and continue to play your department for a 
bunch of fools???? By the way.... have ANY of you actually taken a 
computer course or understand the industry at all???? It certainly 
doesn`t look like it from here, outside the beltway, in heartland 
America.
    Ralph Arnold (a.k.a. Arthur Frame on the net)
    Canton, Ohio
    P.S. For some actual insight into the larger case against 
Microsoft, maybe you boys should read the article at: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    It explains why you look like such fools when dealing with Bill 
Gates. Come to think of it, the `geek boy' certainly has 
made the entire Justice Department look like hacks and dullards. 
Anyone connected with the case should seriously reconsider adding 
their participation to any resume. It wouldn`t be a plus unless you 
were applying for a job at Microsoft.



MTC-00003934

From: Gigahertz@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Hey its time to wrap up this settlement and stop wasting the 
nation`s money. The issues that precipitated the law suit are now 
mostly moot. The country has other, more important, things to worry 
about. The enemies of Microsoft will only be happy with the 
destruction of the Company which no practical person is going to 
recommend. Realize this and end it.
    R. Zardeskas
    4521 Larson Dr.
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277



MTC-00003935

From: deal@austin.conexant.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24390]]

Date: 12/10/01 2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my concern about the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. This settlement does little to curb the abuses the 
Microsoft has employed to become the monopoly that it is today. It 
has enough loopholes to be ineffective at promoting competition and 
in fact appears to be written in a manner which actually empowers 
Microsoft to not share API, protocol, and file format information 
with non-commercial entities_the same entities which are 
currently the biggest threat to Microsoft, open-source programs.
    Microsoft has gotten where it is today by bundling applications 
with the operating system, making these de-facto industry standards 
(Word, Excel), and then raising prices once dominance has been 
established (MS Office). It then thwarts competition by changing 
protocol and file formats to ensure that competing products must 
continually reverse-engineer just to remain compatible. Microsoft 
also benefits by forcing everyone to upgrade to the newest office 
suite every couple of years, since old versions do not support the 
newer formats. It would not be able to do this if the applications 
had competition and users had the ability to choose the best 
implementation of a word processor, etc.
    For real competition to exist, Microsoft must design products 
around open specifications. Microsoft should be given leeway to 
promote their own protocols, but implementations of these should be 
open to competition so that the best product will succeed in the 
marketplace, not just the one that gets shipped with nearly every PC 
manufactured. This can only occur if Microsoft is forced to develop 
on a level playing field where all players are privy to the same 
information.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to leverage its monopoly in the 
operating system arena to other areas of computing. It has already 
done so with office applications and web browsing and continually 
tries to do so in other areas such as networking (authentication, 
SMB, anti-Java practices), audio/video media (audio/video codecs), 
and the internet (Windows XP MSN Explorer and .NET).
    The 1994 Consent Decree did nothing to stop Microsoft`s 
monopolistic practices_it simply provided the foundation of 
loopholes for them to exploit. I sincerely hope that this settlement 
does not turn into another win for Microsoft. To quote Judge 
Sporkin, `Simply telling a defendant to go forth and sin no 
more does little or nothing to address the unfair advantage it has 
already gained.'
    Eric Deal
    Eric Deal Conexant Systems, Inc
    Senior Design Engineer Digital Infotainment Division
    eric.deal@conexant.com (512) 349-3557



MTC-00003936

From: Michael Whitesage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
    I am writing this letter to express my support for the Microsoft 
Settlement. I am the President of a software development company. 
Contrary to the anti-trust charges, Microsoft has enabled me to 
build a global business that employs twenty people.
    Prior to Microsoft, the software we purchased was expensive, 
failed to integrate, and we always risked the failure of the 
company. Microsoft has provided us consistent products that we 
require to successfully develop our own applications.
    I feel that the Settlement is important to putting this behind 
us. The remedy is reasonable and will benefit many children who 
would not otherwise have this opportunity.
    We live in a competitive world. Today I compete with companies 
in Europe, India, and China. It is only through innovative software 
that we keep our advantage. Microsoft`s software and integrated 
solutions is essential to our continued success.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Whitesage
    President
    PRISM Group, Inc.
    10131 Coors Road NW, Suite 520
    Albuquerque, New Mexico 87114 USA
    Telephone: +1 505 897-7800
    Facsimile: +1 505 897-7898
    Internet: www.prism-grp.com 



MTC-00003937

From: Jon Webb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:28pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft settlement
    I understand that you are collecting opinions on the proposed 
settlement of the antitrust case with Microsoft. I strongly believe 
that the settlement represents nothing more than a complete 
capitulation of the government to Microsoft, which will only 
encourage Microsoft`s illegal, monopolistic, and anti-competitive 
acts in the future.
    It has been said that this case represents the last chance 
anyone will have to restrain Microsoft, because the role Microsoft`s 
own records have played in this case will surely make them change 
their practices on the use of email to discuss their anti-
competitive plans. The government has deliberately walked away from 
this chance.
    The Clinton administration handed you a won case. All you had to 
do was to pursue the appeal following the strategy laid out in the 
trial case, and the appeal was winnable_all the facts were 
there. The judge`s behavior hurt the case in the public`s view, and 
the judge`s removal meant that the judge would have to be replaced, 
but the facts were still there. Instead of pursuing the appeal, you 
dropped the ball.
    The American computer industry will be hurt by this. Already 
Microsoft is chilling competition in new areas, including 
multimedia. For a brief time, during this case, it appeared that 
there might be a chance for real competition in this area, and many 
startups bloomed in response. Now that opportunity is over.
    Jon Webb



MTC-00003938

From: Lorin Rivers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Much of the proposal seems to be attempts by 
Microsoft to INCREASE their competitive advantage.
    First, the aid for schools part needs to be a fund, with no free 
Microsoft software thrown in. This is an attempt to take customers 
from Apple.
    Secondly, it seems as if Microsoft is attempting to defeat free 
software such as Apache by preventing non-profit organizations from 
having the same rights as commercial enterprises with which 
Microsoft competes.
    They never quit!
    Thanks _
    Lorin Rivers 512.263.1233 x712 v
    Product Manager 512.263.1441 f
    REAL Software mailto:lrivers@realsoftware.com
    PMB 220 http://www.realsoftware.com
    3300 Bee Cave Road, Suite 650
    Austin, Texas 78746
    REALbasic: the powerful, easy-to-use tool for creating your own 
software for Macintosh, Mac OS X, and Windows.



MTC-00003939

From: Joseph Waddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    My name is William Joseph Waddell III. I work with the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to provide technology 
services to over 200 users at the Carolina Population Center.
    I find myself asking where I should start. Permit me to start 
with the statement: Microsoft is Guilty! The Microsoft corporation 
has taken advantage of all people of the world. Their products 
(including MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, 
Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Office 95, Office 97, Office 
2000, Office XP, and countless other applications developed my 
Microsoft) are inferior to Open Source (read: FREE) software. 
Microsoft`s applications paint the user(s) into a 
`virtual' corner. Microsoft has known that they cannot 
compete with the open source community. Indeed, how Microsoft must 
have thought when constructing their business model taking into 
account that the products they provide are supplied for free, and 
with higher quality, by people around the world.
    They have attacked our open source community. An open source 
community where thoughts, ideas, sights, and sounds are for all to 
experience. An open source community who provides the technological 
tools with which all people can enrich their lives. Microsoft has 
attacked by entrenching themselves in proprietary thoughts and 
methods. Microsoft has not created anything great. Microsoft has 
taken away what was to be. Microsoft has not encouraged the 
betterment of our world...our community. They have shown that making 
money is more important that the well being of the people of the 
world. When a comprable open source

[[Page 24391]]

(FREE) product arrives on the software scene, Microsoft squelches it 
with their power of monopoly. That could have been the opportinity 
for thousands of, people who could not afford Microsoft software, to 
log onto the internet for the first time using open source (FREE) 
software. It may have been the begining of some children on the 
other side of the world creating an online community...but 
NO...Microsoft didn`t want it to happen without making some money on 
it!
    I`m asking you to terminate Microsoft with extreem prejudice. 
Please do not let Microsoft continue to oppress the majority of the 
world through their monopolistic practices!
    Sincerely,
    William Waddell
    Carolina Population Center
    jw@unc.edu
    (919)966-6115



MTC-00003940

From: Eli Kae Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Eli Kae Moore
121 Wason ST
Medford, MA 02155
ekmoore@celticweb.com
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I am writing to voice my opinion of the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I do know believe that the proposed settlement is 
adequate to protect the public`s interest. In particular I am 
against the idea of Microsoft donating software to schools or any 
other public institution instead of paying a monetary fine or having 
the company split into two or more entities. Microsoft has already 
been declared a monopoly and has used illegal means to maintain said 
monopoly. By having Microsoft donate software to the schools their 
monopoly is only furthered as most people stick to the computing 
platform which they learn first, changing only as advances in 
technology allow and/or require. Furthermore since Microsoft sets 
the price of this software there is no way to know exactly how 
punitive such action would actually be.
    I would also like to voice my concern regarding any 
correspondence supporting the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
Microsoft admitted to forgery in the past. I refer to earlier this 
year when Microsoft was caught fraudulently writing letters from 
fictitious or deceased individuals in support of Microsoft to state 
attorney generals and claiming that such behavior was both legal and 
the standard practice in business. For this reason I would consider 
correspondence in support of Microsoft to be quite suspect.
    Sincerely,
    Eli Kae Moore



MTC-00003941

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:33pm
    I feel the proposed settlement as written is fair for the DOJ, 
Microsoft and U,S. consumers and that this matter should be laid to 
rest.
    Jeff Graber



MTC-00003942

From: cfdmanW@netscape.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I do not believe that the settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft 
have agreed to has gone far enough to punish Microsoft for its 
monopolistic behavior. The company was clearly found guilty of 
monopolistic behavior and for the government to `roll 
over' for them is simply not good for the software industry in 
the long run.
    At the miniumum, the DOJ should insist that Microsoft make its 
file formats publically available and thus, no longer, proprietary. 
This would include the file formats for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, 
movie and audio formats, etc.
    I thank you for your time.
    Saif A. Warsi



MTC-00003943

From: James E Bauer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:37pm
Subject: Comment on the proposed Final Judgement
    I believe that the continuing success of our high tech 
industries is a critical part of our national future, and recommend 
that the settlement to which Microsoft has agreed is crucial to our 
getting back to work.
    Please expedite this process with a minimum of recrimination and 
adverse comment.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Bauer, M.D., M.Div.



MTC-00003944

From: Andrew Chen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 2:43pm
Subject: opinions about anti-trust settlement with Microsoft
    I think that in the settlement Microsoft must donate real money, 
instead of computers and (Microsoft) software, so that schools can 
have their own choices of computers and software.
    We want to give the freedom back to the customers and fair 
competition to companies. If the schools have to accept the Windows 
again as the results of anti-trust settlement, then such settlement 
ends up committing more monopoly for Microsoft. If so, I do not 
believe that the federal attorneys are doing a good job to protect 
the consumers.
    Andrew Chen
    CC:Andrew Chen



MTC-00003945

From: zmoran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well done and thank you.
    RJ Moran
    825 S. Tamarind Cir
    Barefoot Bay, Fl 32976



MTC-00003946

From: Alfred E. Spurr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The U.S. government is finally promoting the FREE enterprise 
system that this country was built on. Breaking up Microsoft would 
only make a mess out of a company which is only guilty of being 
competitive in a free enterprise system. Microsoft even helps its 
competitors by including some of their products on it`s system. The 
government did not break up IBM and look what that company has 
contributed to the business world.
    Thank you, U.S. Government



MTC-00003947

From: PsyJohn@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a brief note to record my support for your efforts and the 
results in this settlement. Let`s get this issue completely behind 
us. In my opinion, our country has much more constructive tasks to 
accomplish than to drag down the engines of our economy. Thank you.
    John A. DeNinno, Ph.D.
    19213 51st Ave NE
    Seattle, WA 98155
    PsyJohn@AOL.com



MTC-00003948

From: Joseph Regina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    The purpose of this letter is to express my support for the 
settlement proposed by the Justice Department regarding the 
Microsoft case. I would like to congratulate the principal 
architects of this settlement. Excellent work. It is my opinion that 
the settlement strikes a difficult balance. I believe it will force 
Microsoft to rethink its culture towards a more `Live and Let 
Live'` approach towards competitors. I don`t believe it is the 
government place to pick winners. Consumers do a much better job. As 
a personal computer user for the past twenty years I have personally 
reaped many benefits over the evolution of PC operating systems. 
Programs that used to cost $40-200 dollars each (disk 
optimizers, disk defragmenters, color management, scanning software, 
etc...) are now much improved and free. For that I don`t think 
Microsoft needs to be punished. Much more needs to be integrated 
into the operating system to make them more useful and secure. I 
hope Microsoft continues to add features without raising prices. I 
do understand Microsoft`s competitors complaints, and there is merit 
to some of their complains. I believe the behavioral remedies 
proposed by the DOJ are quite appropriate.
    Keep up the good work.
    Best regards
    Joseph Regina
    jregina@houston.rr.com



MTC-00003949

From: Kirk S. Kuzma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft has been done wrong by

[[Page 24392]]

the DOJ, and it is time to end it.
    My simple view on the action brought against Microsoft is sheer 
amazement at the lack of understandanding for the software industry, 
and the difficulty of creating software for thousnads of differant 
configurations of personal computers.
    For example, PC manufacturers often use substandard components 
of several different varieties when creating PC for large customers. 
When this occurs, Microsoft has to include device drivers for every 
one of these devices. Try setting your monitor to a specific brand, 
you will be presented with several thousand choices from several 
hundred manufacturers. Add to the mix all the peripherals and you 
will see how many resources have been devoted to this single aspect 
of windows.
    It makes common sense to me for Microsoft to be able to control 
the base operating system as shippied initially to the customer. 
When manufacturers bundle helpful tutorials, additional software, or 
other Value Added Extras, they are invariably installed incorrectly, 
poorly documented, are of poor quality, and in most cases, affect 
the stability of the Operating System. As the feature set of Windows 
has increased over the years, the complexity of these features has 
been skillfully seperated into components which can be used by any 
number of applications that desire to use them. Like the Web Browser 
component. From the first day, this component was available to me 
for use in my Visual Basic applications. Netscape on the contrary 
was nearly unusable from other applications, and their philosophy 
was quite draconian_You must be contained within their browser 
if you wished to utilize the services that exposed.
    I have written several emails in the past, and it is clear that 
the whole case was driven not by the factual realities of software 
development, but the hidden agendas on the lobbyists who represented 
the companies that had painted themselves into a corner by creating 
huge slipshod applications that could no longer adapt to the 
marketplace. The truth is the same today_ Poorly written code 
stays around for a lot longer than people realize, and in my 
experience, most companies are loaded with substandard systems. I`m 
truly convinced that the action and finding against Microsoft 
precipitated the collapse of the market, as it said to the entire IT 
industry, dont try succeed or the government will intervene. The 
worse part was that the technical community was kept quite distant 
from the case, and I would challenge the so called court experts to 
explain the technologies exploited by Microsoft to achieve browser 
superiority. I doubt if they could. In fact, the government was 
never able to explain it.
    In the Software Development world, personalities take second 
place to quality, yet we reward the the most skilled political 
lobbyist by listening to their dishonest tales of conspiracy when 
they fail in their own business. Microsoft has done more good for 
standards that any other company in the world_and the 
government finds this bad? What is the message you are trying to get 
across?
    If you really want to do some good, go after all the Spammers 
and disseminators of Viruses and Trojan Software and make the 
penalties severe.
    Sincerely
    Kirk S. Kuzma
    Sr. Software Engineer



MTC-00003950

From: Bob Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    Microsoft`s offer to supply software and hardware to schools is 
pure marketing. In doing so, they are extending their monopoly and 
creating an additional revenue stream that will pay out as schools 
are forced to upgrade existing software to match Microsoft`s ever 
changing file formats. This will also likely bind schools to 
Microsoft`s present and future licensing schemes where the software 
becomes cost prohibitive.
    A far more equitable solution would be to place the cash at the 
school`s disposal and let the normal rules of consumer choice apply. 
The schools could exercise their judgement to purchase Microsoft`s 
products or those of a competitor as they see fit.
    Regards,
    Bob Greene



MTC-00003951

From: Rbuzz1931@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice department could very well spend more time on 
projects that have an immediate effect on the economy. Take a look 
at the variances in gasoline prices in the west. Blatant price 
fixing at its best! The Micrsoft team is benefitting the economy 
with its state of the art products. Let their crybaby competitors 
wail all they want. Instead, they should just get busy, innovate and 
create new products and enjoy the fruits of the American free 
enterprise system like Microsoft did.



MTC-00003952

From: Gary Strauss
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The wording of the settlement document covers the case of for 
profit organizations and businesses very well but specifically 
excludes the not-for-profit groups that at the present time 
constitute the major competitors of Microsoft. The not-for-profit 
competition I refer to includes the Apache web server, the Linux 
operating system, the open office suite, sendmail, and Samba. The 
terminology limiting the recourse of not-for-profits needs to be 
revised to allow them the same rights as given to the for-profits.
    Gary C. Strauss
    American Megacom Inc.
    Phone: 734.779.4826
    Mobile: 734.812.5592
    Fax: 734.464.8828



MTC-00003953

From: James W. Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Subj: (1) Microsoft Settlement
    (2) ?Don?t kill the Golden Egg that hatched the Goose!?
    Myself and many other Small Businesses around the United States 
cannot help but be appalled at the Political circles that are 
kowtowing to AOL-TIME WARNER CONGLOMERATE, Sun Micro Systems 
and others. Please take the time to read my feelings, as well as the 
feeling of many others. The 9 States are attacking and litigating 
Microsoft, just as they did the Tobacco Companies. After the full 
litigation was over in Florida, for Example, the purpose for which 
the Litigants (the states lawyers sued for), not one RED CENT has 
been expended for those with Tobacco related illnesses. I know, I 
had an Uncle, Charlie Hay, who passed away in Dade County, Florida 
November 6, 2001 with CPD (Chronic Pulmonary Disease) from Smoking, 
and he was fortunate to have Family members take care of him! This 
is a farce of the highest order.
    The American Public is sincerely becoming fed up with all these 
activities at the expense of the State & Local Tax payers. Also, 
many of us Computer users, Prior to Microsoft Windows Operating 
Systems and Office Applications, found the Computer environment was 
very unfriendly, and Apple had a monopoly of the Windows ICON type 
programs. Microsoft innovated a way to make regular Pc`s act like 
Apple computers. This opened up the market for many PC manufacturers 
and the information industry. Please refer to the following URL, 
http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/info/
ms_schumer_response.asp
    This is a letter I just read to Senator Charles Schumer of New 
York, who it appears, is on the take from AOL-Time Warner and others 
who oppose any efforts by Microsoft to improve the ease of use of 
the windows operating system. He has been holding meetings with the 
Opponents of MICROSOFT Corp. in an effort to prevent them from doing 
their business. If this is allowed to continue, none of us in 
business in the United States are safe from these `Left Hand 
Liberal Wingnuts Socialists'.
    Microsoft has developed their software to the point where the 
entire world can communicate. My little company, Holland Signal, 
Inc. http://www.holland-signal.com, is able to communicate with our 
customers? worldwide on a Peer-Peer level that is un-paralleled in 
the History of the world. We have been using Microsoft, and other 
Software products of theirs, as well as other software Providers for 
over 15 years now. And they have steadily improved my companies 
operations tremendously, at a very affordable price.
    My customers and Associates in Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, 
Panama, Argentina and other locations in South America, France, 
Belgium, Holland, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as 
well as

[[Page 24393]]

Australia, New Zealand, Korea and South East Asia, and not to 
mention some 50 plus of my Extended family members can all 
communicate with me via the Internet and Microsoft Office Documents, 
MS Outlook (my scheduler and Internet Client), MSN Messenger, Net 
Meeting and a many other software systems and sub-systems, such as 
Adobe Acrobat and other Adobe products. All of my Foreign Clients 
and Associates marvel at the stupidity of our government allowing 
these attacks upon Microsoft. They cannot believe a National Asset, 
such as Microsoft is under such continuous attack. And, Microsoft is 
a National Asset. Stick your heads into any office near you and 
inquire as to the preference of their Software on their computer, 
and which one they use the most. You will find out very quickly, our 
Industries run predominantly on Microsoft. The reason is simple. It 
is easy to use, and it has commonality across the USA and the world, 
thanks to Microsoft `we have Compatibility'.
    It is time to call a halt to these Un-American Acts. It is to 
the point that I would welcome a return to the 1950s` when we had 
the house Un-American Activities committee, which would investigate 
these shenanigans. These Clinton and Schumer types, we have become 
fed-up with. And I have a lot of friends in the Elks, Moose, 
American Legion, D.A.V. and other organizations, to which I belong, 
who just can`t believe this type stuff is allowed to continue.
    Please let our feelings be known. Please ?Don?t kill the Golden 
Egg that hatched the Goose!?
    Sincerely,
    James W. Holland
    Holland Signal, Inc.
    P.O. Box 33607
    Indialantic, FL 32903-0607
    Tel.: +1-321-727-8737
    Fax : +1-407-650-2826
    e-mail: jholland2@cfl.rr.com
    
    web: http://www.holland-signal.com 
    CC:Bill Nelson,Bob Graham,Howard Futch



MTC-00003954

From: GC Research
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft`s monopolistic behaviour should be stopped as soon as 
possible. I strongly support California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, 
Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah and West Virginia and the 
District of Columbia for their continued battle to end this 
monopoly. Further, microsofts attempt to reacha settlement via 
donations to schools only serves to strenghten the monopoly by later 
needs of upgrades by schools. How long is this going to last?
    I hope that the DOJ comes to a solution that benefits our 
country



MTC-00003955

From: MsGee@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In regards to the proposed settlement between the United States 
and Microsoft Corporation, I find that it is of some note that it 
appears from reading that the United States has the only right to 
withdraw it`s consent to the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
    Secondly, as I felt from the beginning of the entire process, 
perhaps the United States is , for some unknown reason, afraid of 
Bill Gates and his `power' as in the amount of money the 
corporation has earned, therefore went after him and the company 
with a vengeance.
    I only know that if the other companies had invested as much in 
R&D perhaps they too, would have been able to come up with some 
of the programs Microsoft has , was, and will be producing., Instead 
of whining about how Microsoft had a monopoly, they should have been 
busy re-investing their monies in trying to get to the same place in 
the computer/internet industry.
    As to the nine states still trying to perhaps overrule the 
proposed accepted settlement , i think they are wasting the 
taxpayers time and money. After all, who are they to second guess 
the court and make another newer settlement proposal, while the 
court entertains the proposed settlement before it now. I am of the 
opinion that the anti-trust laws are extremely out of date, 
antiquated , and need to be revised. The ant-trust laws , as they 
are today, do not adequately address technology in the slightest , 
especially at the rate it is advancing. I have only seen, a 
`supposedly' good law, one that is `supposed to 
protect' a company, end up to be rather one that does nothing 
but stifle creativity. And that is exactly the result of our anti 
trust laws as they exist today.
    I see nothing wrong with someone being inventive or innovative 
and taking something beyond that of the `accepted' 
process or progress of a saleable item. That is a smart 
businessperson.
    I understand that Microsoft Corp. put the pressure on 
manufacturers to use their products, and that Microsoft is being 
punished for doing that. However, to be forced to give away codes, 
etc. is taking someone`s inventive processes and is not only unfair, 
but an actual theft of intellectual property. So is that to be 
allowed?
    If these other companies cannot figure out what Microsoft has 
figured out, they don`t deserve to be in competition with any 
company.
    If the other companies refuse to pay their employees the best 
wages possible, they have no right to complain about the progress 
that the Microsoft Corp. has made by hiring the best and paying good 
wages for their services.
    If the other companies choose not to re-invest profits to allow 
the creation of innovative practices, they have no right to be in 
business, let alone right at all to complain about the business 
practices of another company.
    All these other companies, still complaining, have yet to reach 
anywhere near where Microsoft has taken technology.
    I question whether or not all of these complaining companies 
have even tried to match or even begun to try to meet the advances 
Microsoft has made in the area of technology. That most likely has 
not occured because they are too busy whining and complaining.
    I do not believe that the government has the right or should 
ever have the right to make a company give up their intellectual 
property assets to make another company happy or allow them to 
compete in the market place on someone elses laurels..... I believe 
in free enterprise to the fullest possibility and that means 
government keeps hands off private business.
    I had a political science teacher once say to my class that the 
`power is where the money is' and for all of us not to 
forget it, and it is this statement that keeps coming to mind these 
past few years. I realize now that for government, that may be a 
correct statement, but for our government to go after a corporation 
that is only in business to advance technology as we know it, the 
government has made a grave error in judgement. Bill Gates does not 
want to be president or anything else, for that matter, except who 
he is as we see him today. A man of great forsight, a man willing to 
put his money where his mouth is, and a man who wants nothing more 
but to make communication and life better for the citizens of the 
world.
    In another vein, an example comes to mind. It is of some 
interest to me to note that in the United States there are many 
medical laboratories in every state , in most large cities. However, 
as an example of a monopoly, there is only one company in the entire 
United States that medically tests for allergy to latex. They charge 
whatever they want to charge,for that particular test and guess 
what? They get their fee! Is that a monopoly? What has stopped any 
other testing facility from performing that test? A citizen is 
forced to use only that particular laboratory located in Florida.
    It would seem to me that since, this is only one particular 
example , there are surely, many other examples just in that 
particular industry alone. My guess is that it`s expensive to set 
that testing up in a lab and therefore other labs just don`t bother 
to re-invest their earnings and offer that service. They probably 
figure that since there`s already one lab performing that test, no 
more are necessary. I would differ on that issue. There`s no healthy 
competition there at all.
    It`s the same thing with the other technology companies who 
whine and complain that Microsoft has a monopoly .. They probably 
figured that since one company already had found ways to surpass 
them, they would just complain loudly and try to make that company 
share their inventive process. Why should they be rewarded? And 
finally, since the government uses Microsoft products themselves, 
why haven`t they switched to another company`s products instead? We 
all know the answer to that question. The other company`s products 
aren`t that good. Why is that? Need I repeat the above comments?
    I think the government has done a real `number' on 
one company who has outmanufactured all the other software 
companies. The government is responsible too, in a sense, for the 
tremendous loss of funds in the stock market in all fields of 
technology, which in turn hurt many citizens

[[Page 24394]]

right in their pocketbook. Maybe the government thought that if they 
could cause that loss among consumers, that the consumers would side 
with the governemnt and sawy public opinion as to Microsoft 
products. Personally, i think that was a grave error on the part of 
the Justice Department.
    I really wonder when this is all over, the court has made their 
decision, how long it will take the various technology companies to 
start complaining again as Microsoft continues their inventive 
processes.
    I am very glad that Gates and Microsoft fought this battle. The 
life of technology depended on it! I hope too, that it taught the 
Justice Department a lesson.(Although i`m not sure they truly 
understand what lesson they have learned). In my mind, they had 
nothing else to do and therefore had to justify their jobs. I`ll 
never feel any differently.
    I think the Justice Dept. should go after other companies and 
encourage them, no.....force them to be competitive, especially 
companies like the medical testing labs mentioned above. That to me 
would certainly justify their jobs. Maybe they should make that 
Florida lab share their work effort in the area of allergy testing. 
Then the consumer would be truly helped.
    I am very anxious for the court to accept the proposed 
settlement and be done with this. I am also very anxious for the 
court to deny the nine states` separate proposal and get on with 
other more important issues that truly affect society at large.
    Sincerely,
    Lynnette Goldner
    1164 South Wellesley Avenue
    Los Angeles, CA 90049
    310-207-5036



MTC-00003956

From: Zemne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement!
    To whom it may concern,
    If all concerned took more time to work on new ideas instead of 
trying to break Microsoft it would be great! Microsoft is an 
essential part of many people`s lives and has helped many young 
people get a good start in life.
    Companies should spend less time trying to get Bill Gates! Let 
the man do what he does best and quit wasting our money trying to 
break the Microsoft Company....
    Thank you,
    Zemne



MTC-00003957

From: Troy Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I`ve read reports of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anti-trust case with great skepticism, and today I have found that 
my skepticism was well-deserved.
    The executives at Microsoft are no doubt very intelligent 
people. Having completely dominated the market for operating 
systems, office applications and now web browsers, it appears that 
Microsoft is planning to use the DOJ`s proposed settlement to put a 
stake in the heart of its only remaining competitor: the open source 
community. Under Section III(J)(2), Microsoft will be permitted to 
withhold crucial APIs and documentation from any non-profit 
organization. This will effectively kill open source projects like 
Samba_a non-profit, publicly-built replacement for Microsoft`s 
file server software. Section III(D) specifies that Microsoft must 
supply APIs to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs and OEMs, but these are 
defined in the footnotes as only commercial entities. Under this 
proposed settlement, Microsoft will have successfully beaten back 
the only entity strong enough to compete with it.
    I thought Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
power? How is this proposed settlement going to prevent further 
abuse? This settlement isn`t punishment for Microsoft`s abuse of 
power, it`s a reward. I smell lobbyists and campaign contributions. 
Stop trying to give away the entire computer software industry to 
Microsoft, the company`s cut-throat greed needs no encouragement. I 
highly recommend reading Robert X. Cringely`s article on this topic: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Sincerely,



MTC-00003958

From: Mark Povenmire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Would you please stop this foolishness with the Microsoft case? 
It is starting to get a little annoying. Why should any company let 
any other competing company have codes that should be kept private? 
Leave them alone, and quit wasting my tax dollars by fighting a 
company that has an aggressive business strategy. I like Microsoft 
products very much, so please don?t try to change them.
    Thank you for your time,
    Mark Povenmire



MTC-00003959

From: LarrimoreJ@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this whole matter has been a witch hunt at tremendous 
taxpayer expense (how much has it cost???). And at tremendous 
inconvenience for the average computer user like me.
    I`ve read the proposed settlement terms and I think it`s lop 
sided in favor of the DOJ. But I guess if we are to get this thing 
solved and get on with our lives, letting the DOJ save face is the 
only way to proceed. What a way to run a government!
    James R. Larrimore
    205 Vernon Avenue
    Glen Burnie MD 21061
    CC:LarrimoreJ@aol.com@inetgw



MTC-00003960

From: John Schuetz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What has happened to the free enterprise system in America? It 
sounds to me like there are a lot of sore losers out there who are 
trying to jump on the bandwagon and to get something for nothing.
    If it weren`t for Microsoft, where would we be today in our 
ability to do the many functions which the computer is capable of 
doing? There are other operating systems available if someone 
chooses not to use Windows. Having Windows as the standard does make 
sense and it simplifies trying to use other computers, in that a 
person does not have to retrain in learning a new system when 
changing jobs.
    My hat goes off to Microsoft and I would think that our 
government and all the blood sucking lawyers that keep agitating the 
lawsuit should find something else to occupy their time. The economy 
is already in enough of a tailspin without having to put up with the 
uncertainity which this type of trial is imposing on the citizens of 
this great country.



MTC-00003961

From: Jim Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It was very clear to me that the suit in the first place was not 
only to punish Microsoft but to help those companies unable to 
compete in the first place because of their reluctance to provide a 
unified product to the public. We never the learned the lessons from 
VHS vs Beta nor Columbia vs RCA protocols for 33 rpm recording etc 
etc etc. As I have personally discovered multiple OS and software 
protocols hinder my freedom by prohibiting sending pictures of 
school projects to parents in other parts of the world.
    Tithe school I work at uses Apple protocols and most industry 
and parents in the world use Microsoft based OS and software. The 
suit was partisan on the part of the government in the first place. 
A better approach would be the separation of browsers from OS but 
allowing free installation to users at the time of purchase. I have 
always used both IE and Netscape as needed_there are no 
issues. I think Microsoft products need to be better NOT limited by 
government. Bill Gates also needs to help others in the country more 
(vis a vis the latest school imitative) Don`t make life tougher for 
me the public because some people (industries & companies) need 
the government to run corporate as well as private lives.



MTC-00003962

From: Michael Banet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:54pm
Subject: They must be split, or STOPPED
    I oppose the kindness in allowing Microsoft to get out of this 
settlement with a small punishment, the company should be split. How 
much money have they slipped under the tables?
    Michael Banet
    80 Harriman Woods Drive
    Harriman, NY 10926
    845-782-3105
    914-661-6624
    Michael Banet
    Web Master:

[[Page 24395]]

    MyMac.net
    http://MyMac.net/
    Ondras Resort
    http://ondras.tsx.org/
    ...Lost Depths...
    http://nin.mymac.net/
    Email:
    mailto:Banet@MyMac.net



MTC-00003963

From: thebirdsalls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
    In my opinion:
    All Government issues and pursuit of advantage over Microsoft 
should cease.
    Microsoft has been a benefit to the entire worldwide computer 
industry. They just do it better most of the time. Overall, no one 
has done it as well as they have. Sure, they do some things that 
irritate but so it is with everything. America particularly has 
benefited. Governments should not persist in legally trying to kill 
the geese that lay golden eggs to the direct disadvantage of us, the 
consumers. Microsoft`s competitors have been allowed to start and 
keep this attack going. NOT FAIR!
    Microsoft deserves the fruits of their labor. Competitors using 
Government should not be allowed to punish a successful business.
    The settlement should be imposed on all states to the direct 
benefit of the consumer.
    Now, I would never vote for Bob Butterworth, A.G., Florida 
because of his holdout for greater return leveraged out of 
Microsoft.
    Richard E. Birdsall
    1896 Peachtree Ave.
    The Villages, FL 32162
    352-259-9870



MTC-00003964

From: Barbara Stepan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I hope that measures are not taken to stop the inovation process 
at Microsoft because we will all lose with that approach. We are all 
right now free to choose what programs and operating systems we wish 
to use.
    We can judge for ourselves which is better. The public is paying 
less each year for Microsoft products as they are keeping the prices 
down. The public is not suffering from Microsoft practices as we are 
from cable TV and phone companies where we have no choice. We are 
bombarded by unsolicited calls over the phone by computer generated 
and unknown caller calls with no numbers to call back and let them 
know we are either interested or not interested in their products. 
This is totally unfair and we are paying for the phone service, not 
them.
    I would not be surprised if Microsoft`s generosity all over the 
world out does not surpass the Government`s. Millions of people 
trust Microsoft with their retirement survival. Can we trust the 
government with our Social Security?
    Please do not stop competition and the free market for Microsoft 
when the people do have choices.
    Thank you,
    Barbara Stepan
    bstepan@zetron.com



MTC-00003966

From: Matthew Arant
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:22pm
Subject: opinion on Microsoft proposal
    It seems to me that Microsoft should pay a cash penalty and not 
a PIK that is structured as advertising for... Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Matt Arant
    Pocket PC magazine
    www.PocketPCmag.com
    mailto:matt@PocketPCmag.com



MTC-00003967

From: marc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am an american citizen living in Houston, Texas. I am unhappy 
with the proposed Microsoft settlement. Microsoft was found guilty, 
and I believe that breaking up the company is the only long term 
solution. marc
    `Back in 1974, when IBM was building its embedded crypto 
chip for online banking, the NSA oozed up and said why don`t you IBM 
guys throttle that back to 56-bit DES? And IBM didn`t fuss, IBM was 
all groovy about it. They didn`t say, you government dorks, get 
lost, we`ll protect our freedom to non-innovate by throwing wads of 
cash and crushing you until we can buy ourselves a nicer 
President.'
    _bruce sterling http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/
251-300/00283_geeks_and_spooks.html



MTC-00003968

From: Damour, James A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing today to comment on the proposed Final Judgement of 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial. While I acknowledge that Microsoft 
has developed many products of great value to consumers, I feel that 
they have unfairly exploited their monopoly position in so-called 
desktop computer operating systems to crush many competing products 
and commercial producers.
    The proposed Final Judgement does too little to punish 
Microsoft, to compensate competitors, or to prevent continued abuse. 
I strongly encourage the Court to reject the proposal. If the Court 
chooses not reject the proposal, I see little hope for Microsoft`s 
commercial competitors. Fortunately for the American consumer, there 
are a number of strong non-commercial competitors to Microsoft. The 
Free Software Foundation, the Apache Foundation, and the SAMBA 
organization are all not-for-profit organizations that produce 
software products that directly compete with, and in many cases, can 
be used in place of, Microsoft products. Among their other virtues, 
these Open Source Software products are available for zero price for 
anyone who wishes to download them from the Internet as they were 
developed by volunteers. The zero price and voluntary contributions 
have allow these products to flourish in the face of previous 
Microsoft`s anti-competative practices. Some industry observers 
(including some Microsoft employees, cf. http://www.opensource.org/
halloween/halloween1.html) currently consider Open Source Software 
products to be Microsoft`s primary competition in their market 
segments, and sometimes they actually hold *dominant* market 
positions (cf. http://www.netcraft.com/survey). As such, many people 
expect Microsoft to attempt to use its monopoly position to crush 
these non-commercial upstarts.
    Sadly, the proposed Final Judgement may be just the tool 
Microsoft needs to accomplish this task.
    To quote from last week`s editorial by Robert X. Cringely 
(http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html), 
`Secion III(J)(s) 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, 
...'�1A` Not only does this language allows Microsoft to 
set the terms as to what is and what is not a viable business and 
thus ignore any business based upon the Open Source Software but it 
precludes Microsoft from having to divulge this information to any 
organization that is not a business.
    The last time I looked, the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and 
Federal Judiciary were not considered `businesses'. 
Section III(J)(2) taken with Section III(D)_which requires 
Microsoft to disclose information and APIs to allow access to non-
Microsoft `middleware' products, but only to commercial 
concerns_seem directly aimed at the very market segments where 
organizations developing Open Source Software have made their 
greatest inroads against Microsoft`s monopoly. These sections of the 
proposed Final Judgement must be reworded to reflect the continuing 
contributions made by not-for-profit organizations to the software 
industry and to the American consumer. Failure to do so will allow 
Microsoft, a company guilty of using its monopoly position in anti-
competitive practices, to freeze out its greatest remaining 
competitors.
    Thank you for your time.
    James Damour
    James.Damour@dfa.state.ny.us
    Principle Consultant
    Keane, Inc.
    474-4637



MTC-00003969

From: Steve Toth
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud the Dept. of Justice and the nine states who are 
finally proposing a settlement with Microsoft. This case has never 
been about the consumer. This case has always been about Sun, Oracle 
and AOL attempting to use the legal system to thwart a competitor. I 
do not agree with using our fine

[[Page 24396]]

 system of justice for these kinds of purposes. Our country has 
wasted enough financial resource, personnel and effort in pursuing a 
company that has demonstrated excellence and works actively to 
contribute to the community and the country on an ongoing basis. 
Microsoft has acknowledged previous wrongdoing, appears to be 
actively working to remedy any reoccurence in the future and appears 
to be willing to reach a fair and reasonable settlement. I encourage 
the Dept. of Justice to settle this case as rapidly as 
possible_that is the course of action that will finally be in 
the best interest of the consumer. Thank you for the opportunity to 
express my opinion on this matter.
    Steve Toth
    Senior Account Manager
    Semaphore Corporation
    2001 Sixth Ave. Suite 400
    Seattle, WA 98121
    Off: 206-905-5015
    Cel: 206-510-2406
    Fax: 206-905-5003
    stoth@semaphore.com



MTC-00003970

From: Michael Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:34pm
Subject: MICROSOFT AND APPLE
    I recommend that Apple`s suggestion be followed: the current 
settlement, with the schools getting Microsoft software, just allows 
Microsoft to gain a foothold in that market. The solution/punishment 
allows Microsoft to increase its hegemony. The DOJ looks like a 
Microsoft puppet in the current arrangement.
    Michael Sullivan mjsull@wi.rr.com



MTC-00003971

From: John Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:39pm
Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement
    P.S.
    I am a registered voter in Alameda county in California, and a 
U.S. citizen.
    John Williamson
    Product Support Manager, Simucad
    510-487-9700x206
    john@simucad.com
From: John Williamson [mailto:john@simucad.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:08 PM
To: `Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov'
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice 
department is very fair and in the best interests of the consumers 
and the United States of America.
    The nine states who are trying to obtain a different settlement 
are just responding to campaign contributions from companies trying 
to gain political and business advantage.
    John Williamson
    Product Support Manager, Simucad
    510-487-9700x206
    36091 Bettencourt St.
    Newark, Ca. 94560
    john@simucad.com



MTC-00003972

From: APress1932@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:43pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
    It is time the Justice Department got out of the business of 
attempting to destroy an asset of the United States. This Company 
has done more for this country than all of the Activities suing 
Microsoft. Once this suit is settled Microsoft will continue to 
surpass all those attempting to destroy the Company.
    The public wants Microsoft`s products and will not buy the 
products of others that are less than acceptable. I and my Company 
will continue to by Microsoft products.
    Putting Microsoft products in schools of this nation will garner 
more Microsoft customers. This is a smart action on the part of 
Microsoft. How can other vendors not see that this is not a good 
idea for Microsoft?
    A. Pressley
    523 Valhalla Dr
    Columbia, SC 29229-3320
    803-788-3293



MTC-00003973

From: Michael Arick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    Please try to stop the Microsoft Settlement. There are many 
flaws with the document, but the worst one is the repeated attempts 
to sideline Open Source efforts against Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Open Source applications, such as the Apache Foundation`s Apache 
web-server are not necessarily produced by for-profit organizations. 
In fact, this is part of what allows them to succeed against 
Microsoft (see the original Halloween document, produced by 
Microsoft in 1998: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
halloween1.html). Not-for-profit organizations should have the same 
rights as other software development houses to Microsoft`s internal 
APIs. Consider the following web-site article by Robert X. Cringely, 
a highly respected commentator on the tech-industry: http://
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    His most relevant quote toward this issue is the following 
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, 
...'
    Hence, any non-profit organization, such as the Apache 
Foundation, will not have access to the information, but Apache is 
the software used on nearly 60% of web-servers in the country 
(according to the Netcraft survey, http://www.netcraft.com/survey/). 
Of all organizations, it seems clear that Microsoft`s most-
successful rivals should have access to the information they are 
required to release. This settlement specifically stops the 
information from being freed in this way. Hence, it won`t be a 
strong remedy.
    Thanks for considering these thoughts.
    Michael Arick



MTC-00003974

From: Jim Bode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that a company should have the right to add additional 
value to their products without the government`s interference. I 
totally disagree with the DOJ`s claims in this lawsuit. Microsoft 
has NOT hurt consumers in any way. Microsoft`s competitors want the 
government to do what they, the competition, can`t do; beat 
Microsoft. We, the consumers, have made our voices heard with, among 
other things, our wallets. I am ashamed of our government, 
specifically the previous administration, for trying to fight the 
battle for Microsoft`s competitors. Microsoft is not a public 
utility that we are forced to do business with. We have a choice. 
Please do not allow anything to interfere with Microsoft`s, or any 
other company`s, right to innovate.
    Thank you,
    Jim Bode
    Bode Enterprises Web Site 



MTC-00003975

From: DrewAIX5
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I understand that the US government is having a hard time with 
the Microsoft antitrust case. Coming from the technology industry it 
is easy to see the monopolistic behavior from Microsoft. But looking 
at the technology industry from the outside in, is no easy feat.
    I just hope that when this is all over, Microsoft will be 
sharing it`s programs with other operating systems like linux, and I 
hope that they don`t gain a monopolistic hold on the internet which 
I`m afraid has already begun. When I buy a new PC from Dell, 
Gateway, IBM any of the most popular vendors, I HAVE TO BUY 
MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP even if I never plan to use it. I would want to 
buy one with Linux but I can`t. In fact I can`t even but one without 
an OS and install Linux myself. No matter what I do I still have to 
pay a licensing fee to Microsoft even if I never use it!
    Where is the consumer choice? WHY exactly don`t I have a choice? 
Not only do I have to buy the Microsoft product but Microsoft 
DEMANDS that I register it and when I do THEY AUTOMATICALLY PLACE MY 
PERSONAL INFORMATION into their Passport database! I don`t want that 
either! I, in no way shape or form wish to have my personal data put 
into a database that was already compromised once in the few short 
months of it`s existence.
    Microsoft will be building this database of people, keeping all 
our information in it, but if the Government was to try to do the 
exact same thing that (Private Industry) Microsoft is doing, there 
would be mad protests in the street, protesting big brother.
    They can, will, and do get away with it because everyone knows 
that the court

[[Page 24397]]

system in this country moves slowly, and that technology is 
constantly changing at an extremely fast pace. By the time the 
government actually has a case together and is ready to take it to 
court, all the rules have changed, and whatever Microsoft was doing 
they don`t anymore (because it doesn`t suit them), and they are on 
to taking over the next new technology that the government isn`t 
even aware of yet. It`s a circle.
    I hope that this chance to break the circle is not wasted. I 
don`t want to see the deterioration of free enterprise in the 
computer business any longer.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Townsend



MTC-00003976

From: Ka9cql@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is unconscionable to allow Microsoft`s remedy in the 
government`s anti-trust case against it to be applied to ONLY 
COMMERCIAL interests.
    To specifically exclude Open Source, Not-for-Profit, and other 
`freeware' products/vendors/organizations from 
consideration of any kind reveals the basis of the proposed 
`solution' to be an unbelievably perverted view of the 
state of the computer industry, today. Microsoft exists because it 
has trashed every competitor that rose their head above the crowd.
    What will Microsoft get away with, regarding Apache, Pearl, 
Linux, DAV, LDAP, FreeBSD, WAP, HTML, XML, CORBA,... (the list goes 
on) if this proposed `settlement' goes through as is? I 
believe I have the answer_`Embrace, extend,... 
extinguish.'
    To coin a phrase `You ARE the weakest settlement... 
goodbye!'
    Mike Sipin
    Frustrated, in CA
    ka9cql@aol.com



MTC-00003977

From: Mike Chytracek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This email is in reference to the remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement filed by microsoft. For them to be able to exclude not-
for-profit organizations access to Microsoft`s API`s, Documentation, 
or Communications Protocols would be in effect, continuing to keep 
their main competition from succeeding. Microsoft`s biggest threats 
to dominating the Internet world are products such as Apache, 
Sendmail, Perl and PHP. All open source non-commercial products that 
are developed by not-for-profit organizations.
    The DOJ needs to understand that they just can not compete on 
the level with Microsoft technically.
    They can not allow Microsoft to make their own recommendations 
for a `Remedy'.
    Mike Chytracek
    Application Developer
    SGSNet, LLC
    600 W Jackson
    Chicago IL 60661
    For My PGP Key: http://www.sgsnet.com/mchytrac/mypgpkey.html 
<_ Another
    Non-Commercial
    product, PGP



MTC-00003978

From: Zimran Ahmed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement`s inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    1) Middleware
    The current language in Section H.3 states `Microsoft 
Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating 
with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of 
general Web browsing)' does nothing to limit the company`s 
ability to tie customers and restrict competition in non Web-based 
networked services under .NET, as they fall `outside the 
context of general Web browsing'.
    Microsoft has already begun abusing its desktop monopoly to tie 
customers int .NET revenue streams and set up a new monopoly over 
the network.
    Part 2 of the same section states `that designated Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable 
technical requirement...' essentially gives Microsoft a veto 
over any competitor`s product.
    They can simply claim it doesn`t meet their `technical 
requirements.'
    2) Interoperability
    Under the defition of terms, ``Communications Protocol` 
means the set of rules for information exchange to accomplish 
predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System Product on a 
client computer and Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its 
successors running on a server computer and connected via a local 
area network or a wide area network.' This definition 
explicitly excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the 
Microsoft RPC calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately 
interoperate with Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim these 
protocols are used by Windows 2000 server for remote administration 
and as such would not be required to be disclosed. The Samba team 
have written this up explicitly here:
http://linuxtoday.com/
news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-11-06-005-20-
OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability in section J., the document 
specifically protects Microsoft from having 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.'
    Since the .NET architecture being bundled into Windows 
essentially builds `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, and authentication 
systems' into all levels of the operating system, ANY API, 
documentation, or communication layer can fall into this category. 
This means that Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming 
it`s part of a security or authorization system, giving them a 
complete veto over ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source
    Substantial amounts of the software that runs the Internet is 
`Open Source', which means it`s developed on a non-
commercial basis by nonprofit groups and volunteers. Examples 
include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under section J.2.c., 
Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to groups that 
fail to meet `reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.' This explicitly gives them a veto over sharing any 
information with open source development projects as they are 
usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and therefore would 
not be considered authentic, or viable businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls).
    3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to `anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.
    Sincerely,
    Zimran Ahmed



MTC-00003979

From: Chris Eddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement opinion
    To the DOJ:
    The settlement is a joke. It does almost nothing to address 
MSFT`s historically outrageous behavior nor curtail future repeats 
of the same.
    I was in the software business for 15 years and over that time 
dealt with dozens of MSFT employees, from developers to the 
Director/VP level. I`ve partnered with MSFT, sold to MSFT and 
competed directly with MSFT. The problem at MSFT not a couple of 
over-zealous executives_an anti-competitive attitude permeates 
the entire corporation. They consider the law as an impediment; an 
obstacle to be avoided or conquered.
    I don`t have a solution, but I know their behavior will not 
change without compulsion and education. This must take place at all 
levels_every employee who interacts with

[[Page 24398]]

the outside world needs to learn respect for the law.
    We are entering a very dangrous period. The last several years 
MSFT has had fend off attacks from numerous well funded internet 
startups. Even a focused giant like MSFT had difficulty subduing all 
these competitors simultaneously. At minimum these companies kept 
MSFT honest in many emerging markets. But the internet frenzy is 
over and the startups are weakening. We are now at risk of MSFT 
extending their monopoly from the desktop to the entire internet. 
Then you`ll have a much bigger problem to fix.
    Thank you for your time,
    Chris Eddy



MTC-00003980

From: roycommi@yahoo.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Kelly
1707 Deepwoods Trail
Leander TX 78641
December 10, 2001
Public Comment
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I believe that any settlement that would have a chance of 
restoring competition to the computer industry would require at 
least the following:
    1) All terms must be enforced by a non-Microsoft party with full 
access to all Microsoft resources, including source code. Microsoft 
cannot be trusted to voluntarily comply with any agreement.
    2) All communication protocols used by all Microsoft products 
must be fully documented. Such documents must be made available to 
any and all parties for any reason. Microsoft is not allowed to 
change their protocols until 90 days after documentation of such 
changes are made available to any parties requesting them. This 
clause must include also file formats used in any Microsoft 
products. The documents must be made available for free at the 
Microsoft web site, not just in MSDN or through some other expensive 
service or licensing. The documentation must be released at least 60 
days before the publication of the product, and also 60 days before 
the publication of any updates. Microsoft itself must follow the 
documentation and not make any unpublished private extensions on top 
of the published protocols. This clause must apply also to any 
security protocols or file-format encryptions. There might still be 
loopholes for protocols requiring patented or otherwise closed or 
proprietary third-party components. Microsoft should be forbidden of 
using such 3rd-party components to circumvent the requirements.
    3) The previous term must also apply to all Microsoft APIs 
(Application Programming Interfaces).
    4) Microsoft may not keep agreements secret. In particular, the 
terms of the current OEM agreements, currently protected as 
`trade secrets' must be disclosed.
    5) Microsoft may not use agreements with Computer OEMs to 
restrict in any way the addition of other software to the computers, 
along with Microsoft products. In particular, OEMs are not to be 
prohibited from selling `dual-boot' systems, where the 
system can be booted into Windows or into some other operating 
system, such as Linux or a form of BSD or BeOS.
    6) Microsoft may not use their licensing terms to stop users or 
developers from using Open Source software or Free Software.
    7) Microsoft may not meddle in the legislative processes of 
Federal, State or local governments or bodies that make 
recommendations to them, with their work on UCITA being a prime 
model of behavior that is prohibited to them as a monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Kelly



MTC-00003981

From: TMAC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you truly want to level the field Microsoft should be 
required to port Microsoft Office to Linux And the API`s (not 
Windows Source Code) should be documented and published for anyone 
to use_even a single person who may want to write a program to 
run on windows



MTC-00003983

From: Steve Phillips
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement offer is inadequate ...
    Dear People,
    Microsoft`s offer to donate billions of dollars of their own 
software to schools seems especially craven to me. Such a donation 
amounts to a one billion dollar marketing commitment by Microsoft in 
the education marketplace, a commitment that no other company is 
capable of making.
    If Microsoft is allowed to go forward under the current 
(revised) proposal, it seems certain to me that essentially all of 
our schools will be required to use, purchase, and maintain software 
manufactured by Microsoft for years to come.
    It would be more equitable to require Microsoft to donate cash 
to the schools.
    _scp
    Steve Phillips stevep@chaseconsulting.com



MTC-00003984

From: Dermot Gately
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Folks,
    I just want to add my voice to the list of concerned citizens 
that feel that Microsoft is getting off way too lightly based on 
what I read on the settlement documents with the DOJ.
    Their punishment should be financial...cold hard cash. Give that 
to the foundation. Allow the foundation to give it to school 
districts and let those school districts spend it on the 
technologies of their choice.
    Allowing Microsoft to provide their software is absolutely no 
punishment at all and is simply making the DOJ a marketing partner 
in their efforts to make the world run on Microsoft products at the 
expense of other software vendors.
    It only expands their grasp...`seed the educational 
institutions and reap the benefit later when those kids hit the 
business world'.
    Please do not acquiesce to the current offer terms.



MTC-00003985

From: Dalton, Paul
To: Microsoft Case at DOJ (E-mail),Lessig (E-mail)
Date: 12/10/01 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft`s X-Box
    I thought you might be interested in this portion of the latest 
Robert Cringley article in InfoWorld:
    `Meanwhile, a reader has reminded me of recent reports 
based on Microsoft`s admission at Comdex Las Vegas that it loses 
around $100 per unit on the X-box game console, with breakeven not 
expected until sometime in 2004.
    You have to ask yourself whether selling below cost is 
`seeding the market' or if it`s that other technical 
term, `dumping,' given the company`s plans to turn the 
consoles into Microsoft-affiliated Internet gaming machines.' 
OR . . . Microsoft could be simply `buying' the market 
for game hardware with the eventual intent to do in the game 
industry just what it did to Netscape: Seize the market away from 
Nintendo, Sega & Sony so that Microsoft is the dominant player 
in yet another market where it effectively has `the operating 
system' (in this case, the hardware contains the operating 
system, which doesn`t get licensed to other `box' 
makers). Once Microsoft has a high enough percentage of the hardware 
market, it effectively controls the game operating system market. At 
that point, Microsoft will be able to play the same sorts of tricks 
on game developers that it has in the past on software developers: 
Giving Microsoft`s own developers either or both of more or earlier 
information than is given to competitors in the game development 
market, thereby giving Microsoft_once again_an unfair 
advantage.
    Just my thoughts.
    Paul Dalton



MTC-00003986

From: Clint Lord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the MS/DOJ settlement. Below are my 
suggestions for changes that should be made to the settlement:
    1. MS should be required to publish the entire Windows API. This 
would include every possible call to the OS. Including API calls 
that are currently only shared between MS OS division and MS 
Application division.
    2. If MS `bundles' any software with the OS (ie. 
Internet Explorer) they would be required to publish its entire API 
as well.
    When I say publish, I mean available to anyone that wants 
it_no stipulations... it would be publicly published.
    This would solve several problems:
    1. MS doesn`t have to show one line of source code to the world.

[[Page 24399]]

    2. No more unfair advantage to MS Application division.
    3. This wouldn`t allow MS to `turn off' an API 
option just to shut down a competitor. They would have to publish 
the change to the API some time before it was released.
    4. This would offer the opportunity for competitors to actually 
create a competing OS that is 100% compatible with Windows apps. 
Talk about leveling the playing field.
    I believe this is a very simple and yet very effective method to 
level the playing field with MS and the rest of the software 
development world. They have been found guilty of monopolistic 
behavior and this would help their competitors compete as well as 
dissuade MS from future monopolistic behavior.
    Thank you for taking the time to review my comments.
    Clint Lord
    CEO/Senior Programmer Analyst
    The Voodoo Cube, Inc.
    CC:Russell May



MTC-00003987

From: Mikko Moilanen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:11pm
Subject: Anti trust case
    I am very disappointed about your way of dealing. If Microsoft 
are forced to give their uselicenses to poor schools, it is same as 
nothing. Monopoly only hardens. What thei can do is give hardware. 
Surely you understand without any problem.
    Mikko



MTC-00003988

From: Warren Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I would 
like to point out that no settlement will be effective if it does 
not address one very important activity that Microsoft has 
consistently used to strengthen its monopoly position. This is the 
activity referred to as `embrace and extend'. This term 
is even used in Microsoft`s own internal documents:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
    My concern is Microsoft`s activities in `embracing' 
open standards, such as the protocols that allow the web to work, 
and then `extending' them, without releasing the details 
of the extensions, citing copyright/patent issues.
    This effectively locks competitors out of the market. This 
behavior is intentionally done to strengthen Microsoft`s monopoly 
power, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween2.html
    Any settlement which fails to address these issues is only 
strenghtening Microsoft`s monopoly.
    Warren Mann
    Kansas City, MO



MTC-00003989

From: Sam Winch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is unfair to non-profit 
software organizations, such as Linux, Apache and SAMBA, which will 
be effectively killed if it goes through as proposed.
    Although it has a nice, `feel-good' veneer to 
it_with computers going to poor schools_the proposed 
settlement also effectively grants Microsoft a license to establish 
a new monopoly in the education market, one of the only places where 
they have real competition from Apple. I strongly suggest you 
reformulate the settlement in a way that actually punishes Microsoft 
rather than rewarding them for their years of predatory monopolistic 
behavior and years of putting other companies out of business.
    A good settlement would open their sourrce code to all software 
competitors (including non-profits), and to have them pay $10 
billion for computers that do NOT run their operating system, and 
for software NOT made by their company. I`m sure they could write a 
check for that much without blinking.
    sincerely,
    Dr. Samuel P. Winch
    1507 Woodcrest Circle
    Harrisburg, PA 17112
    (Note: this opinion is personal and almost certainly does not 
reflect the opinion of my employer)



MTC-00003990

From: Anderson, Ken
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 6:17pm
Subject: Thanks!
    As a Microsoft software user, as a software developer, and as a 
Microsoft investor, thank you for moving on.
    Ken Anderson. President
    Anderson & Associates, Inc.
    100 Ardmore St.
    Blacksburg, VA 24060
    540 552 5592 fax 540 552 5729
    800 763 5596
    anderson@andassoc.com
    http://www.andassoc.com



MTC-00003991

From: Brad Borland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:22pm
Subject: Comments
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I concur with the actions of the DOJ and Microsoft in reaching a 
settlement. It is in the best interest of the consumer, tax payer, 
software developers, the US Government and anyone with a pension or 
profit sharing plan. It may also expedite the ability of Microsoft 
and the EU to reach an amiable settlement.
    While there are some sour grapes, there are really no losers.
    Brad Borland



MTC-00003992

From: Stuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Ms Hesse
    Being a member of the open source movement. I find the proposed 
DOJ settlement with Microsoft both incomplete and dangerous. Most of 
my customers use SAMBA a product that emulates Microsoft LAN 
software. SAMBA is completely unprotected by this agreement from 
predatory practices we know will ensue from Microsoft. Why does this 
settlement only protect commercial entities? Microsoft is a monopoly 
which will continue to play `hard ball' to protect it`s 
turf against all comers. If this settlement continues as read, I 
believe that the IT economy will suffer greatly from lack of 
innovation, fewer consumer options and even more Microsoft lock-in 
than exists currently.
    I believe that if the settlement were to be just, Microsoft 
would be forced to open all standards they propose to competition 
from all comers. These standards would be available as they were 
developed enabling comment and a watchful eye to be cast by the 
wider IT community.
    Your sincerely
    Stuart Guthrie
    Managing Director
    Eureka IT Pty Ltd
    Sydney, Australia



MTC-00003993

From: Robert Cortese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I`m sure you guys are away of slashdot, anyways I submitted a 
comment that I thought was pretty good on the MS subject so I 
thought I would share it with you guys down at the DOJ. I`ll 
summarize now, basically schools do not need more computers taking 
up space, they need new facilities instead of the delapidates peices 
of crap we call schools now. Here is my slashdot comment, enjoy!
    1 thing I havent seen on this thread is what the teachers 
responses were to the MS settlement deal. Listening to Rush 
Limberger this morning, he said that the teachers said screw the 
computers, just give us the money. After watching the track record 
of these teachers over the last 30 years, my only answer to them is, 
Do you realy think we`re going to trust you with all that money 
after the way you left our public schools systems in such shambles? 
Where america used to be first in acedemia we are now 4th behind 
asian countries. I`ve watched PBS specials on how asian schools 
conduct themselves, it is allmost a throwback to american schools in 
the 30`s and 40`s. Teachers use corporal punishment, shame and guild 
trip techniques, get involved with parents and generally do all the 
things we americans tossed out of our schools years ago, mainly 
discepline.
    I think computers are going to do more to hurt than help 
honestly. I remember working for the pleasonton union school 
district, it was a constant challenge to fend off the waves of would 
be script kiddies and hackers that habitate the k-12 system. The 
company I worked for was not cheap either, I was whored out at 
$150@hr to clean up these little `messes' that 
the kids made on the network.
    Another thing scary about computers in schools is it will 
justify even less spending on academic supplies such as textbooks, 
pencils, papers. The teachers will spend less time teaching the 
children how to work

[[Page 24400]]

through problems and school is going to become a very cold place 
with little to no interaction between student, teacher and parent.
    MS should be forced to pay, but are k-12 really the right 
answer? How about donating a computer to every high school graduate? 
Instead of using them as a `learning tool' why not use 
them as an incentive to get kids to hit the books harder. Of course 
we could use china`s techniques of public humiliation (read dunce 
cap) and caning to make kids focus. Being that we are america, we 
spend too much time worrying about these kids rights, fuck em I say, 
my tax dollars are paying for their education, not a good time. 
There is a third option of course, this was really popular in the 
80`s and 90`s. We could make MS buy massive quantities of ritilin 
for our kids and dispense it in their milk. Like bart simpson says, 
`No itchin or twitchin cause I take my ritlin'. Being 
one of `those' kids who was called down to the nurses 
office to take that crap, nah too publicaly humiliating (other kids 
said we took crazy pills)
    All jokes aside I think the best thing for MS to do is to buy up 
property and erect schools. Even if the Oakland school district got 
new computers, there is no data wiring, and I doubt the electrical 
is any good either. It`s still going to be the same old drab 
emotionless schools that they are now. Space is what schools need 
more than anything. How many times have you driven past a school 
only to see 3 or 4 of those `temporary' trailers parked 
on the blacktop. Our school buildings have become the equivelent of 
trailer parks, our kids are the equivelent of trailer park trash. 
This is what needs to change, not @%#%@ more 
computers to take up %@#-%@ more space. Am I the 
only one that see`s this or am I a crack smoking lemur?



MTC-00003994

From: Jon Benton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    If it is true that the language of the Microsoft Settlement 
precludes Open Source and Government bodies from gaining access to 
vital Microsoft API source code, I believe that would be an 
egregious and shameful miscarriage of justice.
    Perhaps the definition of a `competitor' who is 
allowed to view the API code needs to be changed to more widely 
encompassing definition which includes entities like the Open Source 
community and Federal, State, and possibly local governments.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Benton



MTC-00003995

From: Dave Owen (Los Angeles)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 6:45pm
    Subject: Please do not allow Microsoft to extend its` monopoly 
into school s as a `punishment'
    Simply put_if cigarette companies were 
`punished' by providing cigarettes to schools free of 
charge, this would provide a short-term financial drain on the 
company, but a long-term financial gain to the company.
    Similarly_if Microsoft is `punished' by 
providing Microsoft software to schools free of charge, this would 
provide a short-term financial drain on the company, but a SHORT-
term and long-term financial gain to the company for the following 
reasons:
    _If children are taught using Microsoft programs, they 
will be significantly more likely to use these programs as 
adults_long-term gain.
    _If children are taught using Microsoft programs, their 
parents will be significantly more likely to purchase these programs 
for doing schoolwork at home_short-term gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, they will need to 
hire Microsoft-trained individuals as support staff_short-term 
gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, eventually the 
free settlement software will be out of date and they will need to 
purchase updated Microsoft software_long-term gain.
    _If schools utilize Microsoft programs, eventually the 
free settlement software will be out of date and they will need to 
make significant infrastructure revisions to utilize any alternative 
to the outdated Microsoft programs_long-term gain.
    As a 30-year-old working professional who was exposed to 
computers at a young age, ALL of which has been obsoleted by current 
technologies, I humbly submit the following:
    The technology our children learn will be obsoleted very 
quickly, likely before they leave college. We serve them better by 
teaching technology theory, rather than sitting them in front of a 
computer just like their home computer and saying `you know 
what to do'.
    The best way to teach technology theory is to use tools that are 
extremely fundamental; for instance, you do not teach math by 
teaching a student how to use a calculator. The calculator is a 
useful tool, but working math problems out by hand is an extremely 
fundamental tool. At the same time, there are circumstances (such as 
figuring SINE and COSINE) where a calculator is a boon. This is why 
calculators and hand calculation are both taught and supported in 
schools.
    For computers, the most fundamental tools available can be found 
on computers that support `command line' access, such as 
DOS, UNIX, Linux, and BeOS (among others). At the same time, 
computers are also used for word processing, to run training 
programs, and to teach skills such as typing. Other, less 
fundamental tools are better suited for such use. This is why 
computers of all kinds must be taught and supported in 
schools_by teaching our children to use the right tool for the 
job, giving them a firm grounding in fundamentals, and exposing them 
to different (and ever-changing) technologies, we will give them a 
most fundamental tool: the skill to examine, choose, and adapt.
    Extending the Microsoft monopoly further into our schools will 
not help us accomplish this task_instead, it will teach our 
children that there is only `one' kind of computer, and 
it is the only kind of computer they should bother to learn. Such 
complacency is abhorrent in an educated and industrialized society.
    A far better lesson to our children, as well as to Microsoft, 
would be a settlement that increases the range of computer equipment 
available, increases the computer/student and computer/classroom 
ratio, and provides monies to hire trained support staff.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00003996

From: Joe Pybus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a retired investor trying to manage my assets so that they 
will outlive my wife and me, I ask that you expedite the Microsoft 
settlement. Something also needs to be done to put an end to the 
grandstanding states attorney generals in this case specifically and 
in general. We as stockholders of the corporations that make this 
country`s economy strong are paying a heavy price for the combined 
efforts of your and the states attorney generals.
    After spending twenty-six years abroad during my working career 
in competition with foreign companies, I strongly believe the anti-
company position our government takes is counter productive and not 
in the best interest of the companies, the company shareholders, the 
national economy or the U.S. citizens in general. Our companies are 
handicapped by our government while our foreign competitors are 
assisted by their governments! Significant costs are incurred in 
pursuing these matters that do not lead to any real benefits except 
to line the pockets of the attorneys. Let`s do what we can to level 
the playing field and utilize these highly qualified attorneys in 
productive endeavors!
    Sincerely,
    Joseph E. Pybus, Jr.
    CC:joedaisypybus@yahoo.com@inetgw



MTC-00003997

From: Elizabeth Ghaffari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft in USPS Mass Marketing Effort
    `Elizabeth Ghaffari' 
 11/29/01 3:01 PM
    Imagine my surprise this morning as I picked up my stamps at the 
USPO and saw the public property inside covered with posters for 
Microsoft`s latest version of their windows product. Not only that, 
but counters were covered with freebie demo CDs showing how 
wonderful their new product is.
    Yet, there`s nothing on display stating the truth that 
Microsoft`s XP works ONLY with new PC hardware, that all older PCs 
cannot operate with this new product. Talk about lack of truth in 
advertising_ AND the USPS is helping!
    As an American taxpayer, I really do not like the USPS giving 
their public property over to the same firm that is being 
investigated for so many antitrust activities both in the US and 
abroad.
    Elizabeth Ghaffari
    techplace@earthlink.net



MTC-00003998

From: Charles Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24401]]

    Note: I am not a lawyer, and thus do not fully understand the 
proposed settlement being discussed. I am merely running on the 
information provided me by several news outlets as to the exact 
terms of this agreement. Allowing Microsoft to settle this antitrust 
lawsuit by giving away a mere one billion dollars in software and 
hardware to schools is preposterous. While I applaud their 
ingenuity, it reeks of the Internet Explorer undercutting all over 
again. Many school districts use Apple Macintosh products to power 
their learning and library computers. Allowing Microsoft to simply 
give away their software, all over again, into a market in which 
Apple has traditionally been dominant is foolish and counter to the 
idea of punishing a monopolist. Simply allowing them access to a new 
market in this guise is unconscionable, especially since part of the 
remedy may be `paid' in software. Microsoft sets the 
price for its product, and it loses nothing (not even in an 
opportunity cost) by giving the software away to a market that would 
not puchase it in the first place. However, they stand to gain 
substantially when the support funds run out, and the schools find 
themselves in the position of having to pay to maintain their free 
software from only a few short years before. They become locked into 
the cycle of upgrades, just like many corporations, and Microsoft 
gains a new steady revenue stream.
    Explain to me again: How is this punishment, exactly? Do not let 
Microsoft make any part of its settlement payment in kind, be it 
software or hardware. Force only cold, hard cash from them. I 
implore you, let justice be served.
    Charles Johnson



MTC-00003999

From: Wade Tregaskis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
     
effectively summarises the most gross errors in the settlement 
details. As for the front of the settlement in general, how about 
Microsoft_ rather than being able to freely run rampant 
through the education market with the government`s blessing, 
smashing a market which has remained competitive so 
far_provide a more realistic sum ($10 billion [or more] US 
seems less laughable) for an independant third-
party_government assigned board of industry 
specialists_to purchase and distribute hardware and software 
amongst the proposed users_low end schools, charity`s etc. 
This board could adopt a multi-platform approach, utilising a full 
range of the available resources_Apple and Intel/AMD/etc 
hardware, Sun, MacOS, Linux [various flavours], Solaris, maybe some 
Unix distro`s, etc.
    The end result would be a `seeded market`, full of a wide range 
of different vendors, who can then compete after the settlement, 
providing motivation to lower prices and provide superior products, 
due to the investment already made by those vendors in the 
settlement. In addition to this, those who suffered from Microsoft`s 
disreputable practises must be compensated. The current settlement 
offers absolutely nothing for this, and one would think this would 
be the aim of the entire case. This is not a morale issue being 
debated. If it was, it would not have taken 2 years to reach any 
kind of verdict, let alone resolution. Microsoft are inarguably 
morally injust, even now. They have mocked the entire case through 
to the present moment, and will continue to do so, by repeatedly 
applying the same tactics to current markets that they did to past 
ones, the tactics and practises which brought about the court case 
in the first place.
    No, this is purely a money-case, with no direct morale issues 
being accounted for. So, money must be granted to those who deserve 
it. The individuals and companies which were crushed by Microsoft`s 
illegal practises. A sad irony that many of those companies no 
longer exist because of Microsoft, but their founders and past 
employee`s could be tracked down and compensated appropriately.
    And final third step to ensure Microsoft cannot 
run_too_rampant in future would be to assign 49% of it`s 
total stock to a wide range of companies and individuals outside of 
Microsoft as a two-fold attack. These companies would then be better 
able to survive Microsoft`s monopoly if they received dividends 
directly from it, and by having such a substantial share of the 
company, the majority would be able to have substantial influence on 
the companies lesser workings. It`s funny how when some /non-
American/ guy in some far off country blows up a few buildings, it 
only takes a few days for America`s egotistically-run government to 
blow the crap out of that country, even with the knowledge he`s not 
even there anymore. Yet, a company that has had such a profoundly 
negative effect on the entire world in so many ways, such that it 
can be closely compared to the xenophobic conquests of Genghis Khan, 
is allowed to exist. And if the settlement goes through in it`s 
present state, it`ll exist with the support and *help* of the US 
Government. Insanity, it seems, will need to be redefined to contain 
this new world.



MTC-00004000

From: Fran Cooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:04pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft/D.of J. settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly object to the proposal that Microsoft be allowed to 
donate computers and software to schools in exchange for the 
settlement of the antitrust suit against them. While on the surface 
the proposal appears to have merit, it should be noted that the 
education market is one of the few areas where Microsoft does not 
dominate. To allow them to strengthen their presence in schools 
constitutes a reward, not a punishment! Microsoft must pay a real 
penalty for their unfair and predatory business practices!
    Fran Cooley



MTC-00004001

From: Adam Loutzenhiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having reviewed the documents related to the settlement and 
being a developer in the software industry myself, I suggest that 
Microsoft release the source code for their products and nullify any 
existing anti-competition agreements they have with various other 
companies. One of the main obstacles to competition with Microsoft 
that other companies face, and especially the open source movement, 
is the format of the documents in which their programs save, 
particularly the Microsoft Office family of applications. Because 
Microsoft solely controls the formats of these files, it is nearly 
impossible to write a program that can read these files. Many 
businesses are therefore reluctant to switch over to an alternative 
office suite than Microsoft Office because they use programs such as 
Word and Powerpoint that save in formats that can not be imported 
into other programs. Because they have literally volumes of 
information locked in these closed format files, they are locked 
into perpetually using Microsoft Office as their office suite. In 
addition, the file formats that these programs use are moving 
targets _ that is, with every new release of Microsoft Office, 
Microsoft changes the file format, which has the effect of breaking 
various legally reverse-engineered import filters, such as used by 
AbiWord. If Microsoft were to release the format of these files, it 
would be possible to create an import function in competing products 
that would allow true competition. Instead of competing over which 
product a business has used the most in the past, products would 
compete over features and ease of use, if Microsoft would open up 
their file formats.
    Additionally, Microsoft has entered into anti-competition 
agreements with various other companies. Although these agreements 
have a wide range of effects, two of the most dangerous to the free 
market are forcing hardware manufacturers to write drivers 
exclusively for Windows and preventing computer manufacturers from 
preloading other operating systems on a same computer that has 
Windows preloaded.
    Forcing hardware manufacturers to write drivers exclusively for 
Windows hurts the free market by locking businesses into using 
Windows because of the somewhat lacking hardware support under other 
operating systems. There is no reason that hardware manufacturers 
can not release documentation on the protocols that their hardware 
uses to interface with a computer, except for a previously existing 
anti-competition agreement with Microsoft. I remember that when I 
used to buy a printer, included in the manual would be complete 
documentation of the interface used by the printer to print colors 
and graphics. Now, when I buy a printer, this documentation is not 
to be found, because nearly all major printer manufacturers have 
agreements with Microsoft that they will only use this information 
to produce drivers for use under Windows. Although it`s true that 
the Foomatic project has legally reverse-engineered drivers for 
various printers whose manufacturers are under these agreements, the 
Foomatic drivers are often lacking in features that make other 
operating systems

[[Page 24402]]

unattractive to owners of these printers. This is an aspect of 
Microsoft`s monopoly that isn`t merely limited to printers.
    I also have an MP3 player that I find more convenient to carry 
around than my CD player, but I need to use Windows to load music on 
to it, because there only exist drivers for Windows for my MP3 
player. If hardware manufacturers were allowed to publish the 
protocols that their hardware uses, it would make competition based 
on merit, rather than who-knows-who. The bootloader issue is equally 
important. Many users do not know how to install software on their 
computers, much less an entire operating system. Unfortunately, this 
means the most users are locked into using whatever operating system 
comes preloaded on their computers. It is presently uneconomical for 
a computer manufacturer to risk not preloading a computer with 
Windows simply because other operating systems have been stifled as 
I`ve pointed out above, and most users do not have the previous 
experience with other operating systems that would allow them to be 
comfortable using them. If other operating systems were preloaded 
along side Windows, uses could play around with them and become 
comfortable in their usage, to the point where competition with 
Microsoft would be reduced to objective measures such as speed, 
usability, and stability. It is uncompetitive of Microsoft to 
actively prevent other operating systems than Windows from getting 
their due market exposure.
    Using myself as an example, I`ve found that only my ability to 
scrap and hack together a usable system has allowed me to get away 
from Windows. Unfortunately, not many other computer uses share my 
level of expertise, and there isn`t enough of myself to help every 
user who is dependant on Microsoft`s products switch over to 
alternatives. In conclusion, the most fitting way to punish 
Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices is to force them to 
stop the very things that make them anti-competitive. To wit, 
Microsoft must publish the source code of their products, which 
includes documentation on file formats, as well as other important 
items that I haven`t mentioned such as the NT File System used in 
Windows XP and API that is only available to Microsoft developers, 
and Microsoft must let manufacturers out of anti-competitive 
agreements. If Microsoft`s punishment is provide any amount of free 
software to public schools, it will only further Microsoft`s 
monopoly, because it will stifle price competition from operating 
systems such as MacOS and Linux. Additionally, forcing Microsoft to 
port their programs to other operating systems than Windows instead 
of opening up their source code will effectively do nothing, because 
users will still be dependant on Microsoft products. The problem of 
Microsoft`s stifling their competition comes from their infectious 
closed-source policies, which spread by anti-competition agreements 
to other companies, and the solution to Microsoft`s monopolistic 
behavior must follow in suit. Microsoft must be forced to release 
all of their source code.
    Adam Loutzenhiser, loutzena@student.gvsu.edu, http://
velex.tabris.net/ AIM: v313x, Yahoo: v313x `All in all it was 
all just the bricks in the Wall.' _Pink Floyd, Another 
Brick in the Wall, Part III __-BEGIN PGP 
SIGNATURE__- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: 
For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8FU/
xFDcZZpveFKoRAh6BAJ9A3j6SPnRSayX/D5J6r1mxLfqwYQCdFCZe 
iYIF5X60KmrEhatm25adK90= =xE96



MTC-00004002

From: Josh Berkus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:11 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing as my right under the Tunney Act to comment on the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department Of Justice. 
As a professional technologist and an American taxpayer, I must 
express my opinion that the proposed settlement is no settlement. 
For four years my tax money paid for the Department of Justice to 
prosecute Microsoft, resulting in a verdict of guilty. Yet under the 
terms of the proposed settlement, Microsoft will not merely not be 
punished, they will actually be encouraged in their monopolistic 
behavior. To name some specifics:
    API DISCLOSURE: The current proposed settlement would allow 
Microsoft to continue shutting out its competitors through arbitrary 
and secret changes to the Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) 
of their products. While the settlement claims to address this 
issue, in fact, it allows Microsoft to continue their monopolistic 
practices. In particular:
    Section III(J)(2): This section specifically says that Microsoft 
only needs to disclose its APIs to entities that meet Microsoft`s 
criteria as profitable businesses. This section would allow 
Microsoft to arbitrarily deny access to APIs to anyone they didn`t 
like, particularly Open Source not-for-profits.
    For example, I currently run SAMBA servers for 3 non-profit 
organizations in order allow their Windows computers to interact 
with the their inexpensive Linux file servers. Under the proposed 
settlement, Microsoft could deny the SAMBA Project, a not-for-profit 
entity, any access to its APIs. This would force the non-profits who 
depend on me to purchase expensive Microsoft server software they 
cannot afford.
    Section III(D): Microsoft is also allowed to deny disclosure of 
APIs that might compromise security. This criteria gives Microsoft a 
pretext for denying access to any Middleware API in a competitive 
market for `security reasons,' and to keep that API 
secret to themselves. All APIs have a security aspect if viewed in a 
particular way, and you may be sure that Microsoft will view them 
that way. My proposal for this issue is that Microsoft be required 
to publish all of its APIs for free to the World Wide Web, without 
licensing or `click-through' agreements. Microsoft 
should be required to maintain these public API documents as long as 
any of the related products are sold in the United states, and be 
required to respond to reports of inaccuracy.
    Numerous Open Source software projects, such as Apache and Open 
Office.org, have put their APIs into the public domain and this has 
made that software better, more secure, and more popular. Microsoft 
has no justification for denying this suggestion except to continue 
its illegal monopoly parctices.
    THE $1 BILLION GIVEAWAY: Microsoft proposes that, to remedy the 
states` claims of consumer harm, they will give away $1 billion 
worth of hardware and software to American public schools. This is 
not a concession from Microsoft, it is part of their sales strategy. 
Apple and Open Source technology currently dominate the eductional 
market, and Microsoft`s share of this market is shrinking due to the 
high price of Microsoft`s products.
    If permitted, this `giveaway' would trick many 
desperate schools into accepting Microsoft software because it is 
`free.' Microsoft would not, however, continue to 
support this software and hardware for free in perpetuity, and 
schools would soon find themselves in debt to Microsoft in order to 
maintain the software and hardware they were given under the 
settlement. Additionally, learning Windows in school to the 
exclusion of other operating systems will cause our children to grow 
up unaware that there are alternatives to Microsoft, thus preserving 
Microsoft`s illegal monopoly into another generation.
    To be blunt, Ms. Hesse, this portion of the settlement talks is 
tantamount to allowing Microsoft to become a heroin dealer to our 
schools. Drug dealers, as you know, often give the first one for 
free. Instead, I propose that Microsoft be asked to give away 2 
billion dollars in cash to an independant foundation administered by 
representatives of Microsoft`s competitors (such as Sun and Red Hat) 
and the Department of Education, and not by Microsoft or their 
business partners. This foundation would be directed to give the 
money to any school to purchase the computers and software they 
want, or even purchase books and hire computer teachers and network 
engineers, with a mandate for the fountation to distribute 100% of 
the money within 2 years.
    I hope that my comments help the Department of Justice come up 
with a better settlement, one that truly prevents Microsoft from 
repeating their illegal monopolistic practices.
    Josh Berkus
    Josh Berkus
    Complete information technology and data management solutions 
for law firms, small businesses and non-profit organizations.
    josh@agliodbs.com
    (415) 565-7293
    fax 621-2533
    San Francisco



MTC-00004003

From: Bob Tanner
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24403]]

Date: 12/10/01 7:14 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement If the information provide here: 
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Is correct Section III(J)(2) must contain language including 
not-for-profit organizations like the Apache Group and Samba Group. 
The language could be interpretted as only applying to for profit 
orgranizations.
    Section III(D) should also include language to disclose this 
same information to not-for-profit organizations.
    Bob Tanner  Phone : 
(952)943-8700
    http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux Fax : (952) 
943-8500
    Key fingerprint = 6C E9 51 4F D5 3E 4C 66 62 A9 10 E5 35 85 39 
D9



MTC-00004004

From: Tom Garlick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:15 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that Microsoft is a monopoly and acted illegally to 
maintain that status, a settlement based on the distribution of more 
Microsoft software seems truly ironic.
    The assumption that Microsoft software in particular benefits 
schools `to prepare students for the business world' is 
not necessarily on target. One goal of technology education at the 
K-12 level aims at teaching software concepts, rather than 
vocationally training students on particular programs. That is, the 
same lessons can be learned from any `office suite' or 
via any `web browser' or on any `operating 
system' to adequately prepare students. A true `public 
benefit' the settlement could provide would be to give the 
choice to schools, not Microsoft. For example, Microsoft could 
provide generic resources (e.g. cash, equipment, etc.) that leave 
the schools free to choose their own software technology.
    Thank you.
    Tom Garlick
    A concerned citizen against monopolies and unfair business 
practices.
    San Francisco, CA 94112
    415-584-5533
    tgarlick@rovor.com



MTC-00004005

From: Rick Curry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:30 pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement
    It is my opinion that the US government has been way too lenient 
on Microsoft. The usual reason I have seen for this leniency has 
been that Microsoft employs a lot of people and other jobs also 
depend on Microsoft continuing to pursue their usual practices 
unfettered by any government restrictions. The inherent speciousness 
of this argument is appalling. Anti-trust legislation was originally 
made into law specifically to deal with companies which have gotten 
too large and must be controlled. An argument that this legislation 
should not be applied because a company has gotten too large is at 
the very least disingenuous.
    In addition, serious and irreparable harm is being done to US 
businesses because of Microsoft practices. Not only do their 
practices limit competition from US companies, Microsoft is also 
forcing critical technologies overseas. Microsoft forces technology 
overseas by the following methods:
_Microsoft forces US businesses to use Microsoft products 
only, putting US businesses at a disadvantage by limiting their 
access to new technologies.
_Microsoft uses intrusive information gathering techniques 
which some countries find unacceptable. In these countries, 
different technologies are created and exploited which avoid this 
Microsoft hegemony. As these technologies mature, they will become 
the new global standard for computing and us
    Businesses will be left out of it.
_Finally, Microsoft actively supports moving any technology 
jobs it possibly can to countries where the labor rate is more 
favorable. Many of these technologies are more art than engineering; 
when the job is moved overseas, the art becomes lost to the US and 
becomes the property of other nations_ nations which can now 
set whatever price on these technologies that the market will bear. 
There is still time to resurrect high technology in the US. This 
window of opportunity will not remain open forever and other nations 
will fill the void of reliable competitively-priced software which 
Microsoft is creating through their monopolistic business practices. 
Please put a muzzle on this Jackal of a company before it is too 
late.
    Rick Curry
     KCO x4684 http://www.cipcug.org/
trindflo



MTC-00004006

From: John R. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:33 pm
Subject: Money for schools
    I feel that allowing Microsoft to get a larger foothold in the 
education market is a monopolistic action in and of it`s self, not a 
punishment. This will just be another way for Microsoft to force 
their will on people, and more importantly on young impressionable 
children. I feel that to punish monopolists, they should pay with 
reduce power or a fine or both, but not with control of a new market 
in which they currently only have a small foothold.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Miller
    2164 Wildhorse Drive Aurora, IL 60504
    630/375-6754
    630/697-2910 cellular



MTC-00004007

From: Paul Colley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 7:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express my deep disappointment with the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust case.
    First and foremost is that Microsoft has been found guilty of 
breaking the law and they are not being penalized in any way. There 
is no fine or compensation to cover ill-gotten gains. There is only 
a list of `restrictions', many of which Microsoft has 
been told to obey before and which have been totally ignored.
    Secondly there is grossly inadequate ongoing oversight of 
Microsofts practices. A three-person team to be located and paid by 
Microsoft removes much of the teams credibility. The fact that 
Microsoft chooses one of the members and has veto over the selected 
of another makes for even less credibility. The severe restrictions 
on who the team can speak to and the sheer scope of what must be 
scrutinized means there may as well be zero ongoing enforcement.
    Finally, the fact that Microsoft gets to decide who is a viable 
`business' and therefore who it must share it`s source 
with means that they can totally ignore and undermine their only 
serious competitors in any number of areas. The most obvious example 
is the Open Source Software movement that is clearly not a 
`business.'
    Please read the following resposes to the proposed settlement 
for further detail as to its fatal flaws:
    Ralph Nader
    http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Robert Cringley
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Thanks,
    Paul Colley
    1933a Delaware St.
    Berkeley, CA 94709



MTC-00004008

From: rcrow@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:02 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please do consumers a huge favor and DO NOT leave the language 
of Section III(J)(2) and Section III(D) as is. If you really are 
interested in promoting competition and innovation, level the 
playing field by allowing open source software to compete 
unobstructed by Microsoft`s interpretation of `business 
criteria'. If there is ANY competitive threat to Microsoft at 
all_it is in the open source world, specifically linux. 
Microsoft is fully aware of this and the DOJ is playing into their 
hand if language such as this is left in the settlement.
    As a side note, it is totally misguided to allow Microsoft to 
extend their monopoly by allowing the company to be 
`punished' by putting their software in our school 
systems for 5 years. This would eventually punish Apple and others 
and not Microsoft at all! And it is not doing those school systems 
or the kids a favor. Take a hard look at RedHat`s counter offer of 
providing ALL school systems the software and support. If that 
happened, you would see ALL KINDS of educational software being 
ported/written for linux in no time at all! Give it some thought, 
please!
    Please take these comments seriously since many companies and 
individual careers

[[Page 24404]]

depend on the direction of the software industry. If Microsoft is to 
have a competitor on the desktop it will probably come from linux. 
BUT if linux is to really have a chance to compete for the desktop 
then it needs to be seen as having a chance of success so that 
software vendors will put resources into writing applications 
targeted for linux_without fear of reprisal from microsoft!
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and time!
    Russell Crow



MTC-00004009

From: Michael Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:13 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has hurt the consumer, and stifled the computer 
industry as a whole with it`s anticompetitive actions. The current 
settlement proposal is heavily weighted towards Microsoft`s 
advantage. Asking Microsoft to pay reparations to the citizens of 
the United States by giving to education is noble. However, the 
details of the arrangement leave much to be desired.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to use any of its products as 
tender for repayment. This allows Microsoft to repay the taxpayers 
of this country by increasing its market share, which is 
counterproductive to any anti-trust resolution. Furthermore, 
Microsoft is able to produce their software from an infinite 
resource. Any cost in providing software to the educators would be 
negligible whether the software is delivered through a physical (CD-
ROM) or virtual (network) medium. Allowing Microsoft to settle its 
punishment with copies of its own software is akin to allowing them 
to print their own money. If Microsoft is to offer goods rather than 
money as a repayment, they must be products of another company, and 
must not contain any Microsoft products.
    This settlement also addresses the issue of Microsoft`s behavior 
in a poor fashion. Microsoft is allowed to have an internal team 
that is responsible for making sure they stick to the conditions of 
the settlement. Furthermore, Microsoft gets to choose the primary 
officer of this team, and in turn that officer has input on the 
selection of the rest of the team. This is not an effective means of 
controlling a company that has previously shown its willingness to 
disregard conditions placed upon it. I agree that the team should 
have an internal presence within the organization so that they may 
have better insight into the company`s actual tactics. But Microsoft 
should have no input into the members of the team. Instead 
individuals from the computer industry should be allowed to submit 
themselves to a court which will make the decision on behalf of the 
citizens of this country.
    Another failing of the proposed settlement is the fact that it 
does not address unbundling of Microsoft`s key technologies for 
extension of their monopoly from their operating systems. During the 
trial Microsoft made strides in integrating even more technologies 
into Windows XP in order to extend their monopoly into other areas 
including digital photograph processing, and user authentication. 
Any acceptable settlement needs to address the current abuses by 
Microsoft, as well as placing restraints on using their monopoly to 
take over other segments of the computer industry.
    Regards,
    Michael Brewer



MTC-00004010

From: Wes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:23 pm
Subject: MicroCrash rain on the planet
    Good day,
    Why would you support a company that produces bug filled 
software that charges you for a defective product. Here is our new 
OS for $199.00 Rev.. Now remember to download all of the patches. Oh 
by the way here is rev. 2 that fixes all of the bugs we left in 
Rev.. for another $199.00. I refuse to buy any products manufactured 
by Micro Crash!!!! At least the developers of Linux are listening to 
what the people want!!! A solid OS and not taking use for every 
penny they can get. Every single time Micro crash releases a piece 
of software it is the same thing over and over!!!! Nothing but a 
milking of we the people. But of course that`s not right anymore!!! 
We the government, for the government, by the government!!!!!
    The news media talks about how United we Stand after the Trade 
Center attacks!!! More like United we stand screwing each other out 
of a dollar!!!! Put a stop to this company shoving their defective 
software down our throats!!!! We the people, what happened to our 
rights to having a choice!!!!!
    Thank you for nothing!!!
    Wes Youmans



MTC-00004011

From: Elgin S. Perry, Ph. D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:28pm
Subject: micro$oft
    Dear sirs:
    I am pleased to see the a requirement in the settlement 
agreement that: Disclosure of Middleware Interfaces Microsoft will 
be required to provide software developers with the interfaces used 
by Microsoft`s middleware to interoperate with the operating system. 
This will allow developers to create competing products that will 
emulate Microsoft`s integrated functions.
    However, I feel that this measure will be ineffective unless 
Microsoft is also required to maintain these operating system 
interfaces in a constant state for sufficient time for a competitive 
market to develop. In the name of innovation, Microsoft has 
continued to introduce continuous minor changes to their operating 
systems and other software products so that 3rd party developers can 
never achieve full compatibility with Microsoft software. Because 
Microsoft currently enjoys and ill-gotten monopoly, it is not 
possible to compete without full compatibility. It is my opinion 
that an industry committee should be formed to establish standards 
and that Microsoft should be required to adhere to them.
    Regards,
    Elgin Perry



MTC-00004012

From: Lorenzo Vg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Were it mine to do, here is what I would order. Microsoft is 
prohibited from shipping any form of internet (web) browser for 10 
years. Microsoft may not ship any software that potentially 
interconnects with any other software where the software to be 
shipped does not comply with open standards. Interconnect includes: 
file formats, public APIs, Network Protocols, others as may be 
defined by the special master.
    Microsoft must publish interface specifications for all APIs 
used by any application software authored, branded or funded by 
Microsoft. The special master may define other interfaces as 
necessary. Microsoft must pay $100Billion to a pool of Netscape 
shareholders. The pool is to be divided according to number of 
shares held, ... something equitable.
    Microsoft must release all desktop software, Office, Access, 
Money, Flight Simulator, Front Page, Net Meeting, etc. on MacIntosh, 
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris. Such release must have all the 
features that the equivalent Windows application has and cannot have 
a defect rate greater than that for the Windows release.
    Microsoft may not ship any applications programs bundled with 
its operating systems. Each application must be packaged, and priced 
separately. Microsoft must divest itself of any business ventures 
not related to software development. This includes MSN, travel, 
shopping, other business as defined by the special master.
    A special master will be appointed to assure Microsoft`s 
complaince. The special master must be known to be 
`hostile' to Microsoft. The special master must be 
approved by Sun, AOL, Bruce Perens. ... How do I apply for this job?
    The special master may assess additional penalties against 
Microsoft for violations of the judgement. The penalties may be any 
anything, up to and including liquidation. Such assessments may not 
be appealed. The special master may order named Microsoft officers, 
key employees, and contractors (inculuding legal counsel) jailed for 
up to 5 years and/or fined up to $50Billion, depending on ability to 
pay, per offense, for contempt if, in his sole judgement, they have 
knowingly and/or willfully, or through incompetence, violated the 
terms of the judgement. The sentence to be served in Sherrif 
Arpaio`s (some county in Arizona) jail.
    Microsoft must publish a double-page spread in at least one 
`leading' newspaper every day in every state for at 
least 2 years stating what predatory practices they committed and 
who they targeted. Microsoft will appologize for their past 
behavior. Officers, directors, contractors (including legal counsel) 
for Microsoft will not contest any civil claims for damage caused by 
their predatory practices and will pay, to the limit of their 
resources, all claims.

[[Page 24405]]



MTC-00004013

From: Todd Spears_
To: Microsoft 
ATR,tatw@fox.com@inetgw,TCSpears_ebay@ho..
.
Date: 12/10/01 8:37pm
Subject: I`m sorry....
    I`m sorry but I have to voice my opinion and disagree with the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft. The settlement as laid out does 
absolutely nothing to curb or stop Microsoft and their illegal 
business practices. I have used personal computers since the late 
80`s the original DOS operating systems and in that time I have seen 
our choices in software expand to include many different types of 
operating systems, word processors, databases, and 
spreadsheets_only to collapse back upon itself to where there 
really is only one or two choices. And the choice everyone is left 
with is Microsoft.
    This has primarily happened due to the practices of Microsoft on 
the free market. I remember years ago a friend of mine worked for a 
computer manufacturer (Packard Bell) and he told me that thru 
exclusive contracts and refusal to ship items (would you like MS 
Word with that? No.. I`m sorry we cannot ship the rest of your order 
for eight weeks. Oh, you`ll take the MS Word? We`ll have your order 
out tomorrow). And that was only one of their dirty tricks.
    The next in their bag of tricks is the proprietary 
format_their software will really only work with other 
Microsoft software. Then, in order to remain compatable more and 
more people are forced to choose Microsoft products. The same thing 
goes with the bundling of the browswer and media player. Any market 
the Microsoft feels threatened by they simply lock their own product 
to the operating system and use that same operating system to 
disable any competitors products. This has happened to me 
personally. Using their updating service one day I found that in 
upgrading itself the media player has also disable the other two 
types of players on the computer.
    The final thing that scares me with regards to Microsoft is 
their overall plan to make ever person who uses their software pay a 
yearly subscription fee. At the same time they provide no real 
service or guarantee for this subscription fee_I as a consumer 
must pay the fee, but they as the provider of the service must 
provide nothing. According to the license agreement (as I understand 
it) they don`t even have to provide a product that works. They have 
no responsibility to do anything_even if their product goes so 
far as to harm your computer.
    Another thing I`ve found is you cannot even buy a computer 
without paying a fee to Microsoft_they have exclusive 
contracts with all of the top computer manufacturers. Between Dell, 
Compaq, Sony, Hewlitt-Packard and IBM they control almost 75% of the 
computer market and yet you cannot buy a system from them without 
paying a fee to Microsoft whether you want to or not.
    I don`t know what the solution is_whether to breakup 
Microsoft or just seriously curtail their illegal/immoral 
actvities_but I do know that though I`ve never seriously 
looked into Linux I may start too.
    Sincerely,
    Todd C. Spears



MTC-00004014

From: Barbara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sunflower
    To whom it may concern, Dec. 10, 2001.
    Please, Please do not let Microsoft off easily. Their methods 
and intentions are obvious and if you do not protect us in all 
aspects of this matter you should not be protecting us.
    Sincerely,
    Marc Brooks
    3802 Dartmouth
    Garland, TX 75043
    972-864-5654



MTC-00004015

From: KenWine@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Given the length of time and considerable expense to the 
taxpayers of the country suggest that the time is ripe to conclude 
the matter against Microsoft and allow them to resume the levels of 
innovation that lead them to become the dominant player in the 
software business. Even though I don`t believe that Microsoft was 
guilty of anything other than providing the best solution to 
consumer`s needs this settlement will get business back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Weiland
    6550 4th Ave NW
    Seattle WA 98117-5006



MTC-00004016

From: Kristian Benoit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:07pm
Subject: Antitrust
    Are kidding ???? your goiing to ask microsoft to give software 
and hardware to american schools, cause they of their 
monopol. . . isn`t that just a way to give them a little 
bit more power over the next generation of student? Isn`t Microsoft 
behind that? They want to look good so they`re gonna give, cause de 
DOJ will ask them to do so . . . but that just giving them 
more and more power. They should give money to the education, to the 
university, a university that will work on another os than windows, 
a university that work to help the community, Linux. But you are on 
their side you are not for justice, cause your american, and in the 
american way there is no place for the community, just for the one 
that can give you money



MTC-00004017

From: swnorris@attbi.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:09pm
Subject: Arbitration
    If you believe we have a choice try to use the other available 
OS`s out there. Try to locate a copy of Microsoft Media Player for 
Linux . . . . . however, many web pages display 
the media files in the Media Player format only. Microsoft has 
gotton so big, we really don`t have no choice but to use their 
product or give up something we really would like to use. I use 
Linux, (several versions), RedHat and SuSE primarily. I also use 
Windows 98, ME, and Windows XP. I have to use the Microsoft Products 
because I have to be able to do some things only available using 
their products. I am trying to learn Linux because I want to 
completely rid myself of MS products. Nevertheless, until the day 
arrives that Microsoft either shares the code so their monopoly on 
the industry can be broken, I am stuck using their product. This 
means I HAVE TO PAY whatever they ask because that is the way it 
goes. I am glad some of the states seen fit not to give into 
Microsoft like the Department of Justice has. I am also frustrated 
with the level of security offered with Microsoft products. I am so 
frustrated over all of this crap. One day, I will without the 
goverments help, teach myself enough to rid myself of Microsoft 
Programs. P.S. I would consider a future purchase of Microsoft 
Products only if the price of the product was substantially lower., 
i.e., $25.00 per license copy.



MTC-00004018

From: elisabeth evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:12pm
Subject: microsoft
    so glad you agreed to settle!



MTC-00004019

From: Ralph J. Hochman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am at a loss to understand the basis for the entire case. I 
have followed it reasonable close and I just can not understand why 
a company that wins in the market place is penalized. I think our 
inter-national competitors are laughing at us and wondering what 
kind of funny stuff we are smoking.
    There are many large companies that could put a great deal of 
cash back into R & D and product development and truly be fierce 
competitors. It is a sad day for the concept of capitalism when the 
successful companies have to be held back by the Government.
    By this standard, I would think that you would be all over Wal-
Mart_whose stated objective is to ultimately be the only place 
to shop in America. The real devastation done by Wal-Mart in many 
small towns throughout America is unbelievable_but no one 
jumps on them.
    They just keep on growing and everyone loves them. As to the 
concept that Microsoft has charged too much for its software_I 
find this part of your case absolutely outrageous. Since when has 
the ultimate consumer become so dumb that he can not decide 
`what`s a reasonable price'? In college I was taught 
that price is a deal between willing buyers and sellers_I 
guess your staff would rather decide what`s reasonable_heaven 
help us all when the Government decides what`s reasonable. If the 
fiscal responsibly of Government to date is any sign of its ability 
to use fiscal savvy, then I think we are all in trouble.
    Microsoft has created a market when there was not one_This 
new market has allowed

[[Page 24406]]

me to my work without expensive techies to bleed me dry programming 
propriety software and computers that never were very good in the 
first place.
    Hail to Microsoft_the consumer`s hero.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Hochman



MTC-00004020

From: gpnash@yahoo.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:34pm
Subject: Seems to me your missing the whole point here.
    Seems to me your missing the whole point here. Microsoft is all 
about taking over the market. That`s been their strategy from the 
start of the company. They do it well. It`s just about impossible to 
buy a computer today without getting a Microsoft product preloaded 
on it. Several of the PC manufacturers/builders have complained 
about it. They get a cut rate on Microsoft products if they only 
offer Microsoft products. If that doesn`t stifle competition what 
does? Microsoft never has had a better product than anyone else, 
they`ve just had (and have) a better marketing team. Microsoft`s 
lock on gaming (directX protocol) virtually insures that every home 
will have a computer running a Microsoft operating system. OS/2 (a 
much better, more stable PC platform both from the client and server 
standpoint), Linux (cute and a viable system in it`s own) and OS/x 
(apple`s entry) don`t stand a chance in the home market as long as 
the directX standard is Microsoft only. 
Browsers. . .forget the browsers, they`re a dime a dozen. 
People will use whatever`s on the machine, if it bothers them 
they`ll download another one. But the directX 
standard. . . there`s a problem. All of the PC games that 
are worth buying and many that aren`t are written to that standard 
and will not run on any other platform. Until directX is available 
on OS/2, Linux and OS/x you`ll have no competition for Microsoft.
    The battle is almost over. Microsoft has so much market control 
unless they are broken up the other companies don`t stand a chance. 
Let`s quit just playing lip service to this situation. Microsoft is 
nothing more than a technical terrorist holding the world at bay 
with viruses and blue screens of death.
    oh well. it`s not like anyone is really going to read this 
anyway.



MTC-00004021

From: John C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz
Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415
101 West Lombard St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation is not in the best interests of the American 
people. It does not protect against future abuses and in fact 
encourages the spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training 
a vast army of young people to use their operating system and 
attendant application programs to the exclusion of very viable 
software alternatives. America is based on freedom of choice; but 
students in Americas` public schools can only learn to use 
computers, an essential skill for the coming generation of 
employees, on the products provided to them. Today, the Dept. of 
Justice has an opportunity to broaden the scope of that choice and 
thus empower generations yet unborn. It also has the opportunity to 
cave in to Bill Gates and thus must choose between greatness and 
ignominy.
    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a 
population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in 
the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to 
provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to 
allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers 
for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students 
(and their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their 
children will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide 
intellectual marketplace against American children whose access to 
hardware was hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the 
practice of using Microsoft products all but exclusively in the 
public schools. The Australian experience could have been 
dramatically more productive had they used Linux as the operating 
system on all their computers but it was a good initial step. The 
present savings represent its use in their servers only.
    http://opensourceschools.org/article.php`story=200 
11207001012102
    
    [opensourceschools.org]
    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in 
hardware donations only. It has been brought to my attention that 
Red Hat Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) 
has offered to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system 
corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire 
that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make 
would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a 
pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer. 
Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should 
require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point 
in time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as 
the Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools 
would eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of 
funds to re-license / upgrade their software.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html [yahoo.com]
    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from 
expressing generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, 
only furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should 
not be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed 
illegal practices in the establishment of their dominance in the 
software market.
    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill 
while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think 
it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their 
very public words.
    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
_passion
    All though I didn`t write this I agree with the content.
    John Constantine



MTC-00004022

From: Amy Rupp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed Final Settlement of the Microsoft Anti-
trust litigation and feel that it does not effectively remedy the 
harm done to consumers and competitors by Microsoft over the years. 
It specifically prohibits known blatant abuses of monopolistic power 
and appoints a technical oversight committee to ensure that those 
abuses do not occur again, but it in no way gives relief to the 
injured parties. To encourage and allow competition in the 
marketplace, Microsoft must be disallowed to compete at every level 
of software present in a computer`s operating system, firmware, and 
applications. To allow Microsoft to continue as a single business 
entity gives a de facto advantage to Microsoft products which are 
synergistic or rely upon other Microsoft products. For example, it 
would be easy to rewrite the Windows operating system to prefer 
specific attributes that only Microsoft employees know about; 
conversely, Microsoft employees who write applications can 
disproportionately impact the continuing redesign and evolution of 
the Windows operating system.
    Given that Microsoft has blatantly violated anti-trust laws in 
the past and has already eliminated much, if not all, of the 
competition in the numerous markets it competes in, it needs further 
restriction or the situation will repeat itself. I liken it to 
having scorched the earth in a particular area. For years 
afterwards, nothing will grow but weeds, especially because the 
seeds that would have otherwise blossomed into plants have been 
killed by heat. Such plants are called competitve, invasive, and 
advantageous. It takes years for nature to rediversify such land; 
but intense effort by man can restore the balance and ensure that no 
one species overdominates. The proposed settlement fails to do this 
because it does not take into consideration the fact that Microsoft 
has already scorched the earth and gained unfair advantage. Instead, 
free of competition, this settlement will allow Microsoft to once 
again overdominate and invade the marketplace. Only a settlement 
which limits the number of areas Microsoft can compete in, or breaks 
Microsoft up into business units which have no more advantage to 
each other than an independent company and a Microsoft unit would 
have can possibly lead to a balanced marketplace. For now Microsoft 
`weeded out' the marketplace and freed itself of 
competitors. Now we must turn to the government to check Microsoft`s 
unhealthy spread.
    Sincerely,
    Amy Rupp



MTC-00004023

From: Erik Odegard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:45pm

[[Page 24407]]

Subject: In Support of the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a professional working in the Information Technology field, I 
support Microsoft`s right to innovate, and urge a quick settlement 
to the US vs. Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Erik Odegard
    HYPERLINK `mailto:Eriko@dslnorthwest. 
net'Eriko@dslnorthwest.net



MTC-00004024

From: David Looke
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 12/10/01 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The whole basis of the trial against Microsoft is misguided and 
this latest settlement is not in the best interest of consumers. It 
is however in the best interest a handful of Microsoft`s competitors 
who being unable to beat Microsoft in the marketplace, have resorted 
to the courts (without just cause).
    It is not in the best interest of consumers to cobble Microsoft 
by trying to prevent it from enhancing it`s products when that 
enhancement may harm a competitor.
    A. When Microsoft added IE (Internet Explorer) and made it part 
of the operating system, that approach added many benefits to 
consumers.
    1. Software developers were able to add support for Internet 
functionality into their applications, knowing that that 
functionality would be in the operating system. There`s a number of 
benefits to software developers in this approach. For example, they 
can program to a known code base without the headaches associated 
with trying to support multiple different APIs and components and 
versions of each. Microsoft`s approach can also reduce the cost for 
developers and therefore consumers by not requiring that software 
developers purchase and ship additional components as part of their 
application.
    2. Software developers could add Internet browsing within their 
application via an ActiveX component_something that Netscape 
had consistently refused to do. This meant customers could browse a 
web site as part of the functionality of any third party 
application. It also made it easy for developers to add automated 
updating of their application over the Internet, from within their 
application.
    3. Microsoft`s integrated IE, was necessary for the Microsoft 
Help system to work. In Windows 98, Microsoft swapped to HTML Help, 
which is a help system based upon compiled HTML. IE was necessary 
for this to work.
    For consumers this added many new benefits, including the 
ability to link to web pages from within the help system which made 
it easy for help system developers and technical documentation 
writers to provide updated documentation via this mechanism. 
Microsoft took this approach as part of it`s stated strategic 
direction, to implement HTML across their product range.
    4. It`s been the history of the software industry that vendors 
keep adding functionality to their products_functionality that 
often harmed their competitors. Most consumer friendly operating 
systems have consistently added new functionality with each release 
of their product. Microsoft has always added new functionality. From 
simple things like adding a TCP stack which meant that the previous 
suppliers of TCP stacks suddenly found themselves without a viable 
product. One company that had built it`s business around supplying a 
TCP stack was put out of business. (A TCP stack is an inherent part 
of the communications capability of a computer and a basic component 
of Internet communications).
    Microsoft added a mechanism that enabled applications to 
communicate within Windows (DCOM) and this meant that Hewlett 
Packard`s product NewWave, was suddenly unviable. In the software 
development industry there`s been a long tradition of this happening 
with vendors like Borland, Microsoft, and previously Symantec and 
Watcom, continually adding new functionality that meant some third 
party supplier`s product became defunct. There`s actually thousands 
of examples of one vendor adding functionality to their product that 
then made there competitors products unviable, and in every case I 
can think of, consumers benefited.
    Therefore I don`t believe any action with regards the 
integration of the browser is necessary, warranted or in the best 
interests of consumers.
    B. With regards Microsoft preventing computer resellers from 
modifying some components of the desktop, it is Microsoft`s product 
and I think they have a right to determine whether it is modified or 
not by the reseller. In fact, nearly every vendor has contracts that 
require distributors and resellers to agree not to modify in any 
way, the software that they sell. Most people don`t have a problem 
with this as it is their intellectual property and any changes can 
reflect on their company and product.
    This litigation against Microsoft over this issue appears to 
have singled out Microsoft solely because of their dominance within 
the operating systems area. However Microsoft shouldn`t be able to 
restrict resellers from also selling and loading onto the computer 
competing products, but this change to Microsoft`s contracts has 
already been made and accepted as a result of previous litigation. 
In my opinion no further action is needed on this issue.
    C. I don`t know where this claim that Microsoft threatened and 
mislead software developers comes from as I`ve never heard of them 
doing this. As the main distributor of software development tools in 
Australia, we have contact with more commercial software developers 
than anyone else in this county. I`ve never heard Microsoft threaten 
or mislead developers over Java. Rather the contrary. I`ve heard Sun 
mislead and threaten quite a lot. Anyway, this is complete nonsense. 
Microsoft has not threatened or mislead developers with regards 
Java_we would have heard about it if they did. Sun themselves 
has recently stated numerous times that Java does not in any way 
compete with Windows. When Java was first released I can remember 
them claiming otherwise, but they seem to have changed their mind on 
this issue. So if Sun and Microsoft both claim that Java doesn`t 
compete with Windows, I can`t see how the submission can claim that 
Microsoft tried to `subvert Java middleware technologies that 
threatened Microsoft`s operating system monopoly'. Java is an 
application development language for goodness sake, it`s got nothing 
to do with the operating system As I stated at the beginning, this 
case is misguided. In fact some of the antagonists in this case are 
in fact worse offenders of restrictive practices than Microsoft. But 
I don`t believe Microsoft to be guilty of most of the charges that 
have been bought against them.
    Unfortunately many people see Microsoft as responsible for their 
computer system crashes, when in fact it is usually always an 
application or utility that is at fault. Microsoft has successfully 
published and marketed their APIs (APIs that other vendors have 
traditionally charged a lot of money for) and produced easy-to-use 
development environments that make it easy for developers to write 
Windows applications. Because it is now relatively easy and 
inexpensive to write Windows applications, many novice programmers 
have done so, producing applications that are buggy. In fact the 
calibre of most programmers is less than we would want and the use 
of runtime debugging and testing tools is less common than it should 
be_so most applications have bugs that can crash the 
applications and sometimes the operating system. This has lead many 
users to blame Microsoft.
    Also, I`m concerned that Universities continue to indoctrinate 
their students to be anti-Microsoft. When these students graduate, 
they are invariably anti-Microsoft. This makes them more difficult 
to train as most application development around the world is done in 
Microsoft Visual Basic or Microsoft C++ using the millions of 
components written for these compilers.
    The Internet is a great tool, but it does make it easy for 
people to shoot their mouth off and hide behind anonymity. Many kids 
and other young people have been very vocal over this issue in 
recent years. They need to be able to state their opinions, but 
unfortunately many of them belong to the anti-Microsoft brigade and 
basically do not have the experience to know what they are talking 
about. They`ve simply followed the propaganda from the Universities, 
Sun Microsystems and jumped onto the media hype and bandwagon 
regarding this issue rather than taking a considered approach. In 
fact many people treat this issue with religious zeal_the lack 
of facts and logic supports the anti-Microsoft stance.
    When I look at the where most of the vocal people in this issue 
come from I find they are mainly Apple users, University related 
people and students, Sun and other Unix users, and kids. However, 
these are the people who form the 5% of computer users who use 
alternate operating systems. The other 95% of computer users are 
generally happy with Microsoft and their products! How then can this 
litigation be justified in a `democratic' country when 
the bulk of computer users, particularly in the business world, are 
happy with Microsoft and their products?

[[Page 24408]]

    Regards,
    David Looke,
    MicroWay Pry Ltd
    David Looke, MicroWay Pty Ltd_Programming Tools
    PO Box 84, Braeside VIC 3195. Australia.
    Tel: (03) 9580-1333, Fax: (03) 9580-8995
    email: davidl@microway.com.au, http://www.microway.com.au 
ABN: 56 129 024 825



MTC-00004025

From: John Peters Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You know, this whole thing pales to insignificance compared to 
General Motors` alleged monopoly abuse. I hear that they are 
requiring their dealerships to accept delivery on SUVs that the 
dealership has no way in Hell of ever selling! The only way to get 
ahead in this industry is to be a `yes-man', and the 
newspapers all print whatever they feel that their best advertisers, 
the auto industry, wants them to. Talk about conflict of interest! 
Their management is clueless! Leave poor Microsoft alone, and go 
after these planet destroyers!
    http://community.webtv.net/JohnPeters2/ElNinoEvents
    http://community.webtv.net/JohnPeters2/Prettykittens



MTC-00004026

From: John A Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have reviewed the terms and found them severely lacking. There 
are 3 things missing that need to be included before consumers will 
gain significant protection from Microsoft:
    1) The Java Virtual Machine from Sun_needs to be included 
in Internet Explorer: 2 Reasons why this is critical;
    a) Microsoft has done much to damage Java through the use of 
non-Java compliant software such as their current implementation of 
the JVM and their broken development tools for Java_especially 
Visual J++. By including the standard Java VM, they will begin to 
make up for the needless damage they have done to this technology.
    b) The Government is required to make all public facing and some 
internal internet content Section 508 Compliant_i.e. 
accessible to individuals who may be blind, or otherwise needs to 
use assistive technologies. The Sun Java VM implements an 
accessibility API (part of JFC/SWING) while the Microsoft JVM does 
not. In other words, the Microsoft JVM is counter-productive for 
efforts to make the web a more accessible place for individuals with 
disabilities, while the Sun JVM has taken a leadership role in 
championing accessibility
    2) Microsoft should be required to keep passport free_now 
and forever, with the additional restriction that its code be shared 
with all identified competitors. As a universal authentication 
mechanism, charging for this service will likely follow after this 
case is closed_ unless explicitly required. Additionally, by 
taking what was essential MIT`s Kerberos and proprietizing 
it_Microsoft will be taking (yet again) what was a good 
example of open standards excellence and converting it to a less 
well understood target for hackers accross the internet.
    3) Microsoft should be required to modify their .NET 
architecture to ensure interoperability with XML web services than 
those developed for the Windows platform; i.e. they should be barred 
from restricting .NET components from working only with passport and 
other windows software.
    This may be the most critical restriction moving forward, if 
Microsoft is to embrace open standards_this piece needs to be 
present. Otherwise the entire content on the internet may some day 
become wrapped in proprietary microsoft protocols, authentication 
mechanisms, and other software agents that would make it hostile to 
other competing technologies.
    If there are any questions regarding my comments, I am reachable 
at 206-267-0071 EST.
    Thanks for this opportunity to comment.
    v/r
    John Brown



MTC-00004027

From: Mark Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer or in other words; the supposed reason the 
antitrust law was put in place. Reading about the alternative 
proposals from other `voices' in the industry I see very 
little to protect me and a whole lot about how to improve the 
industry position of Microsoft`s competitors. If you really want to 
see a complete monopoly, try to buy a piece of hardware compatible 
with an Apple computer from someone besides Apple; you can`t. Some 
other companies have tried to manufacture Apple compatible hardware 
only to fall victim to Apple`s anticompetitive practices.
    The fog caused by political contributions of many of Microsoft`s 
competitors (PACs) has created a feeding frenzy by state attorney 
generals who saw their state treasuries grow from tobacco 
settlements. Expecting to get the same from Microsoft, a company who 
never killed anyone and never mislead consumers, proves to us all 
that companies can use the legal system to improve their market 
position rather than spending the money on research and development 
to give me, the consumer, a better product. I believe many of 
Microsoft`s competitors are and will be following that same business 
practices they do not want Microsoft to be able to use. I do not 
believe protecting the consumer had much to do with the original 
action and in many ways, if Microsoft were to cease providing their 
products many consumers would suffer.
    Check out what company provides the most help and aid to enable 
the handicapped to use computers. I know which company that is. My 
father was sightless (that`s blind to all of you aren`t familiar 
with the term), but was able to use a computer thanks to the help 
provided unselfishly by Microsoft. When he had problems getting his 
voice synthesizer to work, his calls to Microsoft not only were 
handled with the utmost importance, but on more than one occasion, 
when answers could not be given at lower levels, Mr. Gates himself 
handled the calls. The ability to use a computer enhanced my 
father`s life greatly as it would anyone who is blind. I wish all of 
the whining technology companies spent what Microsoft spends to be 
sure their products can be used by the handicapped (Not a bad thing 
to include in a ruling, something that actually helps consumers, not 
just companies).
    It`s not difficult to see the hidden agendas of the politicians 
involved with the Microsoft case. Hatch listens closely to a company 
named Novell (Definitely a monopoly in networking before Microsoft 
released NT). Many members of congress listen closely to the wants 
and complaints from one of their favorite investments, which is 
located about 30 minutes outside of Washington DC, and is probably 
the biggest monopoly in history (AOL). Preservation of AOL`s instant 
messenger monopoly has lead them to absolutely refuse to participate 
in an open standard so all operating systems and browsers, not just 
AOL`s, could talk to each other. Microsoft was one of those parties 
seeking an open standard and AOL refused. The only way I can talk to 
my children at college using instant messenger is to install AOL 
software that installs other AOL software that is difficult to 
remove and causes non-technical computer users to sign up for AOL 
internet access whether they want to or not.
    It is my hope that after all the whining is done, and the 
ulterior motives of all the parties are examined, the Justice 
department will see fit to rule in a way that will protect me and 
other consumers, not merely enhance the market position of 
Microsoft`s competitors. I wish these companies would spend half of 
that money they spend harassing Microsoft on research. They would 
have better products and consumers like me would be the big winners. 
Some of the proposed `remedies' may actually hurt the 
consumer. It is important that companies that actually innovate and 
not just litigate be allowed to improve their products.
    Technology can help the handicapped live better quality lives, 
but everyone ignores them because they can`t afford to buy it. Any 
company that spends research money to help the handicapped, knowing 
full well the return is in good will, not bigger profits, should be 
applauded, not sued.
    Like most consumers, I can`t afford big political contributions 
to get my voice heard, but it was my understanding that`s why the 
Justice Department is there.
    Thank You,
    Mark Walsh, An American Consumer
    CC:president@whitehouse.gov@inetgw



MTC-00004028

From: Steve Slater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:20pm
Subject: Concerns about the Microsoft Settlement
    I object strongly to any discrepancies drawn between `For 
Profit' businesses and `Not For Profit' 
businesses, `Open Source', etc. in the Microsoft vs DOJ 
Settlement.

[[Page 24409]]

    Make sure Steve Satchell is involved in regulatory enforcement.
    Steve Slater



MTC-00004029

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:33pm
Subject: About the judgement
    1 Billion Dollars to put computers and Ms software in U.S. 
schools? They make it back on their MIDDLEWARE and I think WPA (the 
schools should get about 10 good installs?)!
    Thank You
    Aron Baird



MTC-00004030

From: LORETTES2@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:35pm
Subject: Suit against Microsoft
    How much money, tax money, has been spent by the government on 
this case?
    How much more? Is there no limit? Get on with it. This isn`t the 
Nurnberg trials. . .
    Lorette Schneider



MTC-00004031

From: Robert Breidecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I am very disappointed in your settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement is very weak and does little to change Microsoft`s 
behavior in the future and punish them for breaking the law in the 
past. The ideas proposed by the nine states that have not settled 
are much closer to where the DOJ should have settled. You settlement 
is so weak that it actually may do more harm to the computer 
industry and consumers than if there were no lawsuit at all.
    Robert Breidecker
    7258 Cornell Ave.
    St. Louis, MO 63130



MTC-00004032

From: Trey Ackerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement_Thanks.
    To Whom it may concern:
    I just wanted to say that I believe the DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft is too lenient. I wish you had been successful in 
splitting the company into two separate entities: Windows OS and 
Applications. Personally, I prefer to run Windows as an application 
under Linux. This way I don`t have to reboot my PC when Windows 
crashes.
    Just the same, thank you for your efforts and better luck next 
time!
    Regards,
    Trey Ackerman
    2825 Blackwood Drive
    Nashville, TN 37214
    USA



MTC-00004033

From: Ray and Helene Reinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HELENE & RAY REINMAN
40455 Parado Del Sol Temecula, Ca. 92592 (909) 303-1606
December 10, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    It`s about time the Justice Dept. and the States` Attorneys 
General got off Microsoft`s back. The Sept. 11th N.Y. disaster 
should have given them the wake up call they needed to know that 
they have not been doing their jobs to protect the American citizens 
and taxpayers. If the CIA, FBI, and the local states were doing 
their jobs, and looking for real enemies, perhaps this could have 
been averted. As a government we still have not learned history`s 
lessons. The tragedies of Dec. 7, 1941, the first bombing of the 
twin towers, and the USS Cole incident are more examples that we 
have become lax and complacent with national security. Perhaps this 
is because we are preoccupied with less pressing issues, like 
attacking our strong technology industry led by companies like 
Microsoft. We are a country in a recession, and we are presently in 
a desperate struggle for survival as a nation, with a faceless 
enemy. Our economy needs to be kept as strong as possible to avoid 
economic collapse. We cannot, and must not tear down the companies 
that have given strength and hope for America. This is political and 
economic suicide.
    Bill Gates is not a terrorist, and Microsoft is not the enemy. 
Few companies have paid more taxes, employed more tax-paying 
American citizens, or launched more related businesses (which in 
turn have paid taxes; employed more workers, etc.etc.) than has 
Microsoft. They have been the premier technical company that led the 
technical economic boom over the past 20 years. They are the major 
holding in mutual funds, union funds and credit unions in the U.S. 
As such they are the hope and future of America`s working class, and 
the bread and butter of the retirement dreams and plans of the 
taxpayers, who pay the bills for the beltway bureaucracy. By 
attacking companies like Microsoft, we are attacking America and all 
it stands for. And in the process bleeding it economically. It is 
illogically asinine to attack one of America`s icons of capitalism, 
when the real, deadly fanatics who have sworn to destroy us continue 
to exist and work their deadly destruction. Will it be nuclear next 
time?
    It is time to move past the crybabies who started this suit 
(AOL, Sun, Netscape, and Oracle), and who couldn`t make it on their 
own, with inferior and expensive products, and seek out and attack 
the real enemies of America. The American economic system works. 
People buy what they consider the best product at the best price for 
the job they want to get done. Stop wasting the taxpayers money on 
worthless lawsuits, that attack the very strengths of American 
capitalism and entrepreneurial intelligence. The American consumer 
has for years cast its vote for the best, least expensive and most 
effective products. And the PC standard, Windows, is no exception. 
In true democratic fashion the consumer has elected and supported 
the finest software product ever produced. The one that standardized 
applications so that all users would have a common data processing 
modus operandi to execute their tasks. Let not the politicians or 
the government attempt to take away that election, and the 
tremendous revenue that it supplies to the state and federal 
governments.
    Governments do not make money, and politicians do not produce 
any money, or add to the gross domestic product. Only good companies 
like Microsoft make money, employee people and pay billions in 
taxes. The only thing the government and the politicians can do is 
spend, spend, spend. The Justice Department would do well to 
remember from whence their money comes; and that this is still 
government of the people, by the people and for the people. And by 
attacking good American companies like Microsoft, they may as well 
as dogs_bite the hand that feeds them. Surely they are not 
that stupid, shortsighted, or preoccupied that they cannot see the 
real danger, and their own political demise by such a continuance? 
May you and your department choose wisely.
    May God bless America, and Microsoft.
    Sincerely, Ray Reinman



MTC-00004034

From: imroscoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What a joke. Lets force them to give away more of what they were 
forcing on us in the first place. Now the organizations that 
couldn`t afford Microsoft products can replace their free Unix 
platform . Can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y?



MTC-00004035

From: George Welch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/10/01 11:53pm
Subject: My Comments on Microsoft Case
    I was mad at Microsoft when they caused me problems with 
Netscape, but we shouldn`t stay mad forever. They have been punished 
and the Fed`s will be watching them closer in the future. The rest 
of us and especially the attorneys, should stop the whining and 
`JUST GET OVER IT'!
    Thanks for the chance to share my thoughts.



MTC-00004036

From: Bryan W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    The current settlement with Microsoft is clearly inadequate to 
1) make them pay for the crimes they committed, and 2) ensure that 
furter anti-trust violations don`t re-occur. Here is 
the_minimum_that needs to be imposed for their criminal 
conduct
    1) $3,000,000,000 fine.
    2) All versions of MS operating systems up to but not including 
Windows XP should be made open source, with the copy right to expire 
1) in 5 years 2) on court order, should MS be found not to be in 
compliance with the settlement.
    3) Microsoft should have to publish on the web the price 
schedules for operating systems, so that no preferential contracts 
can be made.

[[Page 24410]]

    4) API`s are to be immediately made availible to all, without 
charge, so that open source software can make use of them, without 
having to be a commercial interest.
    5) All contracts restricting the sale, manufacture, or product 
of dual-boot systems are to be null and void.
    6) Microsoft must resume free support of their products. Current 
support options are all fee based.
    7) Microsoft must support Java on all operating systems.
    8) Explorer must be unbundled from the OS.
    Thank you
    Bryan Waterman



MTC-00004037

From: Chris Menzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Please note that Section III(J)(2) of the Proposed Final 
Judgement potentially plays right into Microsoft`s hands. It says 
that Microsoft needn`t share its APIs and communication protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don`t 
meet criteria for a being a business that are ESTABLISHED BY 
MICROSOFT itself. Microsoft might well try to use this clause to 
torpedo its central threats, namely, the flagship products of the 
Open Source free software movement that created the Apache web 
server that dominates the internet_and which Microsoft would 
dearly love to supplant with its own buggy, high-priced, and 
insecure web server_the ubiquitous programming language perl, 
the Linux operating system (the most serious competitor to Windows), 
and samba (a program for enabling Windows clients to see a Linux 
server as a Windows server).
    Please ensure that this clause is revised in such a way as to 
ensure that sophisticated, secure, high-quality free software will 
continue to be a vibrant alternative to Microsoft products for all 
computer users.
    Thank you.
    Christopher Menzel
    cmenzel@tamu.edu



MTC-00004038

From: Ron Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope the government will finalize the current settlement with 
no additional penalties to Microsoft. This suit has gone on too long 
and was clearly brought on at the urging of Microsoft`s competitors. 
There has never been any harm to consumers and in fact the consumer 
has been the beneficiary of Microsoft`s low pricing and 
standardization. The competitors, if successful, would be just the 
reverse. High prices and little if any standards.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ron Nelson
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00004039

From: docfi@nycap.rr.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read the article at:
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    Jon Fowler



MTC-00004040

From: aerland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ:
    Several sections of the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
appear not to be reining in its abuse of its monopoly power, but 
rather empowering it to extend that power!
    For instance Section III(J)(2)(c) effectively gives Microsoft 
the power to kill not-for-profit and other Open Source projects with 
a clause that permits them to determine if a business `...(c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...' I urge you to reconsider the fundamental nature of this 
settlement, lest it have the effect of further extending the power 
of the convicted monopolists, Microsoft Corporation.
    A. Erland
    aerland@directvinternet.com



MTC-00004041

From: Andrew Peter Reynolds Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:08am
Subject: tunney act
    bill gates built a better mouse trap, and now you people [doj] 
want to punish gates??? I`m not a bill gates fan, I`m an mac-
fanatic. but to punish gates makes no sense. on the other hand, it 
doesn`t make any sense to allow him to capture the educational 
market. that`s all mac has, that and the ever shrinking video 
capable machine market. let gates make a monetary settlement, in the 
form of grants, to lower socio-economic school, and then let the 
schools buy mac. that seems fair.
    apreynoldsjr
    apreyjr@earthlink.net
    give it a rest doj...aren`t there enough legitimate crooks 
around for you to chase.



MTC-00004042

From: AznGuy7758@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:18am
Subject: Comments on proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement
    I am shocked at the leniency that Microsoft will receive in the 
latest proposed antitrust settlement. Microsoft has for years 
bullied and illegally used its monopoly power to quash competition 
and force its products upon consumers, and I see nothing in the 
proposed settlement that will prevent them from doing so in the 
future. Microsoft did not emerge victorious in the word processor, 
spreadsheet, and internet browser markets because its products were 
vastly superior to those of its competitors. It did so solely by 
illegally leveraging its monopolistic position in the operating 
system market. Am I to believe that Microsoft Word was so much 
better than the once reigning word processor, WordPerfect, that 
Microsoft now deserves to hold 94% of that market? Or that Lotus` 
spreadsheet and Netscape`s Navigator browser were so inferior to 
Microsoft`s products, that their markets now rightly belong entirely 
to Microsoft as well? I personally did not switch from using 
WordPerfect to MS Word several years ago because I thought that the 
latter was a superior product. I was forced to do so because all of 
the PCs at my workplace came preloaded with Microsoft products at 
the expense of its competitors, thanks to Microsoft`s illegal 
bullying of PC manufacturers. Now that Microsoft has already taken 
these markets and overwhelmed its competition with its monopolistic 
leveraging, is the latest settlement proposal somehow going to right 
these past wrongs, ensure a completely level playing ground in the 
software market, and bring these pioneering companies back to the 
prominence that they truly deserve? The fact of the matter is the 
damage has already been done, Microsoft has won on its own terms, 
and its technology is now even more deeply entrenched in the market. 
The latest antitrust remedy will do little to rectify this 
situation. If Microsoft`s operating systems will still be free of 
any significant restrictions, if they do not open up their APIs, and 
if they can still bundle anything they want with their operating 
systems, what exactly are they sacrificing? Many of the provisions 
of this mild settlement reflect changes that Microsoft has already 
made, so the settlement itself seems to be a moot point now.
    I am frankly very surprised that the Justice Department chose 
not to break up Microsoft into two separate companies: one which 
develops operating systems, the other which develops applications. 
This seemed to be the most logical and fair remedy, as it would 
ensure that Microsoft could not continue to tie its applications so 
closely to its operating systems. At the very least, Microsoft would 
have had to consider every company`s applications equally in 
determining which to bundle with its operating systems. Given 
Microsoft`s historical disdain for fair play and its reputation for 
evading past remedies, does the Justice Department truly believe 
that Microsoft will suddenly stop using its monopoly to favor its 
own applications? It seems obvious to me that Microsoft will 
continue to have an unfair advantage over its competitors.
    It is clear that Microsoft currently has the power to control 
the direction of computing, regardless of how popular or powerful 
competing technologies may have proven themselves to be. Take Sun`s 
Java technology, for example. Microsoft is the only company in the 
world that has the power and audacity to exclude something like 
Sun`s Java Virtual Machine from future versions of its operating 
systems. Over the past five years, Java has established itself as 
the undisputed de facto standard for running applications on 
multiple platforms, and yet Microsoft won`t include this technology 
in Windows. Java has taken the software industry by storm since its 
emergence, and yet Microsoft has decided to go against this 
overwhelming tide. Can you think of any other software company in 
the world that could conceivably reject a technology that`s as 
popular and as mature as Java already is today, and still get away 
with

[[Page 24411]]

it? Microsoft`s advocacy of `innovation' only seems to 
apply when it is done on Microsoft`s terms, using Microsoft 
technology. Their definition of `innovation' seems to 
involve identifying a competitor`s product, buying it outright or 
coming up with their own version which runs only on Windows, killing 
off the competition using their monopoly, and then declaring to the 
world that they have `innovated' for the benefit of 
consumers. They are attempting to do this now by subverting Java as 
the predominant multiplatform technology and replacing it with their 
own `.Net' technology.
    I used to scoff at the idea of Microsoft being able to dominate 
the Internet, but it has now become clear to me that not only is 
this entirely feasible, it is exactly what they will succeed in 
doing without a stronger antitrust remedy. Microsoft will continue 
to leverage its monopoly to advance its .Net technology while 
killing off Java and other companies` innovations unless the Justice 
Department does something to rectify the situation. To be fair, 
Microsoft has surely had an enormous positive impact on the industry 
as a whole, though for the most part this has meant standardizing 
the entire world on a Microsoft platform. What they have 
consistently done to the detriment of consumers has been to 
illegally use their monopoly to kill off competitors` innovations in 
favor of their own version of `innovation'.
    What consumers need now is a remedy that will prevent Microsoft 
from forcing its products upon us, while other companies` valuable 
innovations fall by the wayside. While the computer world has become 
a better place with Microsoft in it, it would certainly become much 
better place if only it played fairly. I hope that the Justice 
Department will reconsider the current proposal in favor of a 
stronger response to Microsoft`s predatory, unfair, and clearly 
illegal tactics.
A Concerned Consumer (and user of Microsoft products)



MTC-00004043

From: Ilan Rabinovitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I suggest you do not accept any settlement in which Microsoft 
may offer free software and services instead of money or other 
restrictions. Allowing them to provide educational institutions with 
free software will only strengthen their monopoly by forcing their 
software on todays youth. Possibly accept Red Hat`s offer to provide 
all software and training services for free if Microsoft provides 
hardware as payment for their wrong doings and anti-competitive 
practices.
    In addition any provisions in the settlement that apply to 
Microsoft`s competitors should also apply to open source, public 
domain, educational, and non profit projects/groups/organizations. 
The MSFT monopoloy has hurt these groups just as it has hurt 
comercial competitors. Microsoft recently retired windows 95. This 
and other products such as DOS, Windows 3.x, etc should have their 
source code opened and made available under a license that allows 
the code to benefit the public. Example licenses that would benefit 
the public: GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. You should consider 
requiring them to open the code to other products as well. For 
example Internet Explorer and other versions of windows. In all 
cases code which is offered should be released under licenses that 
dont hinder the ability of the public to make use of the code. 
Finally please consider limiting Microsoft`s ability to enter the 
home entertainment system market. This will allow them to spread 
their monopoly to the machines that run our homes. I for one do not 
look forward to a day where Microsoft runs all aspects of my life. 
As it is their sub par software has made our lives more difficult by 
introducing regular crashes and security issues into a majority of 
the computing systems in the world.
    Ilan Rabinovitch
    Los Angeles, CA 91316



MTC-00004044

From: Steve Kinney
To: Microsoft ATR,groupmind2 @yahoogroups.com@inetgw
Date: 12/11/01 1:27am
Subject: anti-trust settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This message is in response for the solicitation of public 
comment on the proposed settlement in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft, 
Civil Action No. 98-1232. I find the settlement completely 
unacceptable. The proposed settlement rewards Microsoft for breaking 
the law. There are no provisions in the settlement that would 
interfere in any way with Microsoft`s anti-competitive practices, as 
the Redmond giant continues to employ illegal means to leverage its 
operating system monopoly into application software, network 
protocol, and Internet server monopolies.
    The well publicized `penalty' chosen by Microsoft, 
that it provide software to some public schools, is nothing more 
than an extension of their already well established policy of 
providing `free' software to any educational 
institution, in order to exclude other companies` products from 
their campuses. I place `free' in quotation marks, since 
the software offered is always network server software, which if 
accepted, excludes other operating systems from the school`s local 
network of computers. Microsoft`s competitors offer measurably 
higher performance, in speed, scalability, security, and 
reliability, along with superior customer support, and lower cost to 
the user. All Microsoft can offer to counter this competition_ 
from innovative U.S. companies like Sun, Red Hat, and Mac_ is 
to foster an educational environment where `Microsoft is the 
only company whose products you have ever seen or learned how to 
use.' Why is it OK for Microsoft to break the law? A private 
conference between Bill Gates and George W. Bush, was documented by 
the Dallas Morning News on July 9, 1999. This meeting was followed 
by over $35 million in Microsoft contributions to the Bush campaign, 
accomplished through direct Microsoft sponsorship of the most 
productive `Pioneer' fund raisers for the Bush campaign: 
Microsoft executives collected full time pay from Microsoft, while 
working full time as fund raisers for the Bush campaign.
    The Bush Administration`s Department of Justice, proposes that 
Microsoft choose exactly how it will be `penalized' for 
breaking the law, and allows Microsoft to freely re-define U.S. law 
as it will be applied to their own business practices in the future. 
I would suggest that the Department of Justice officials` first 
loyalty should be to the law of the land. This would require the 
enforcement of anti-trust laws as written and voted into force by 
Congress. Even when the convicted offender is Microsoft.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Steve Kinney



MTC-00004045

From: Wendell Schubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:25am
Subject: MS Settlement is not in my best interest
    I do not feel that the currently proposed Microsoft/DOJ 
settlement is in my best interest. It does not punish Microsoft for 
abusing it`s monopoly power, and will not stop Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse that power. The current settlement effectively 
does nothing to make Microsoft play fairly in their markets.
    I would much prefer to see Microsoft broken into FOUR competting 
companies (ie: TWO applications companies that must compete in the 
same market and TWO operating systems companies that must compete in 
the same market). I also believe that the courts should have stopped 
the release of Windows XP until a settlement is completed as Windows 
XP further abuses Microsoft`s monopoly power (practically forcing 
users to participate in their new Passport services) as well as 
infringes on freedom of speech (handicapping your encoding auto to 
the mp3 format in favor of their proprietary wmf and the 
`Smart Tags' feature in the illegally integrated 
Internet Explorer that can effectively edit sites webpages).
    Sincerely,
    Wendell Schubert
    6755 SW Princess Ave
    Beaverton, OR 97008



MTC-00004046

From: Matthew Geiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 2:33am
Subject: Feedback on proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I understand the Justice Department is soliciting US public 
comment about Microsoft`s proposal to supply computers and software 
to underprivileged school districts to satisfy the punishment phase 
of its legal settlement over monopolistic practices. I dearly hope 
the Justice Department won`t allow Microsoft to use its proposed 
settlement to extend its monopoly and potentially generate more 
revenue for itself by locking the neediest school districts across 
the US into the Microsoft product-upgrade cycle. I also trust the 
department sees the inherent disingenuousness of

[[Page 24412]]

Microsoft providing the lion`s share of the settlement value in 
software whose marginal cost to Microsoft is next to 
nothing_but which is being valued at off-the-shelf prices for 
the purposes of the settlement.
    In evaluating the true worth of the Microsoft settlement, it`s 
most informative to note the offer by Linux distributor Red Hat to 
provide operating system software, desktop applications and updates 
to these systems for free to these same school districts. That would 
maximize the value of the settlement for these school districts by 
investing all of the Microsoft payout in tangible computer hardware, 
which can operate on open-source software for free. The difference, 
Red Hat estimates, will allow qualifying schools to receive an 
average of 70 computers each, as opposed to the 14 each they would 
get under the Microsoft proposal. All this without raising the 
nominal amount of Microsoft`s settlement.
    I doubt there would be a warm reception at the DoJ for a 
proposal by major tobacco companies to settle their legal damages 
partially by supplying heart-lung machines to the nation`s neediest 
hospitals and then satisfying the balance of the settlement in 
cartons of free cigarettes to the neighboring communities.Yet, this 
example isn`t without parallel to the current Microsoft case. 
Indeed, considering that this settlement itself stems from 
Microsoft`s monopolistic practices and price-fixing, it clearly 
better serves the sense of justice that Microsoft`s punitive 
settlement should help engender healthy competition in the 
marketplace_as well as provide maximum benefit to our 
educational system.
    For the record, as a user of both Microsoft and open-source 
software at home and in the workplace, I`m fairly agnostic about the 
roles and performance of both. Having installed and administered a 
number of open-source-based servers, applications and security 
tools, I am continually impressed by the stability and functionality 
of this free software. At the same time, I certainly appreciate that 
Microsoft has put a great deal of research into developing its 
product line. But Microsoft`s marketing practices consist of just 
the sort of abusive, manipulative behavior that the US` fair trade 
laws were designed to protect the public from. Please don`t let 
Microsoft similarly abuse and manipulate this nation`s justice 
system.
    Yours sincerely,
    Matthew Geiger
    Matthew Karl Geiger (US citizen)
    21 Oxley Walk
    Singapore 238594
    matthew@geigers.org



MTC-00004047

From: kenusdojgov@klabrams.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:04am
Subject: Please listen to Apple Computer...
    To Honorable J. Frederick Motz,
    I support and volunteer my time and equipment to help my three 
daughters in three schools in the San Jose, CA area: Mulberry 
Elementary, Baker Middle School and Westmont High School. All three 
schools have a mix of computers, but the Macintosh systems are the 
most prized for their ease of use, installation and training. I`m a 
software engineer and manager for 20+ years, and have used Windows, 
Macintosh and Unix systems many times, but I highly recommend using 
Mac systems at the schools. I back this up with donating time and 
equipment.
    I strongly object to rewarding Microsoft for their moral and 
civic failures by helping them corner the education market. 
Determent, not rewards should be what the court is looking for.
    Ken Abrams
    kenusdojgov@klabrams.com
    4074 Keith Drive
    Campbell, CA 95008



MTC-00004048

From: Frederic Soulier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    Please do not let Microsoft off the hook so easily, they have 
done enough damage and harm to too many companies to not be punished 
in some ways. They are going to exit this case even stronger than 
before, free to use their power to harm consumers and companies 
beyond any possible repair.
    Regards,
    Frederic Soulier



MTC-00004049

From: Norman.Azadian@swisscom.com @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As Microsoft claimed during the trial, times and the nature of 
business have changed. The anti-trust enforcement that was 
meaningful three-quarters of a century ago are not necessarily so in 
the twentyfirst century. Specifically, the settlement takes into 
account only established, for-profit, business entities, as defined 
by Microsoft itself. Talk about letting the fox guard the henhouse! 
In today`s world of computer software, Microsoft`s most dreaded 
competition is not a business, but free software. For example; 
Apache, Sendmail, and Perl rule the internet, and yet they are all 
free. SAMBA, another freebie, is widely used to let real servers 
serve Windows shares. Without the knowledge which this proposed 
settlement guarantees to businesses, SAMBA won`t be able to keep up.
    Even the US government is denied the information. Remember the 
story of the new battleship that had to be towed back to harbor on 
it`s maiden voyage because it`s Microsoft-driven computer system 
failed? The DOD, NASA, NIST, and assorted national laboratories are 
all prime contenders to need the information that is being 
dispensed.
    This proposed settlement needs another going-over. At the very 
least, the US government should be included. Organized free-software 
efforts are also vital. Better still, why not just require that the 
knowledge be put in the public domain? If it can be made available 
to the so-called arch-rival businesses, why not to Joe Public? In 
any case, Microsoft should not be allowed to set any standards for 
eligible recipients_that is an obvious conflict of interest.
    Don`t be fooled by my address; I am a US citizen.
    NHA
    Norman.Azadian@Swisscom.com+41 31 342 8129
    MC-OP-MIT-SWM-TSWSwisscom Mobile AG



MTC-00004050

From: Dale Pedersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am hoping that you will accept this e-mail as my comment on 
the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. The trial concluded 
that Microsoft is a predatory monopolist. That couldn`t be more true 
and is something anyone familiar with the computer industry has 
known for many years. My concern is that the proposed penalties are 
not strong enough. The proposed settlement seems more like a slap on 
the wrist than what is really needed, something with teeth. Please 
do what you can to throw the book at them. All the public is asking 
is for the government to make the punishment fit the crime. Pretend 
that you`re the Taliban and make the remedy merciless!
    Dale Pedersen
    CMR 420 Box 741
    APO, AE 09063



MTC-00004051

From: Lawrence Sproul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Where are the protections for Non-profit, opensource, and 
government entities?
    And why does Microsoft get to choose it`s own criteria for 
determining what businesses can participate in the benefits.
    Shouldn`t this be done by the Independant Committee?



MTC-00004052

From: Denis Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 4:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    Microsoft has broken US laws.
    When reaching a settlement please remember that justice must not 
only be done, but must be seen to be done!
    To introduce free Microsoft software into schools would seem to 
sanction Microsoft`s behavior and to suggest that the US Government 
rewards such law-breaking.
    Please punish Microsoft so the punishment not only equals the 
crime, but can be seen by all to equal the crime.
    Denis Williamson



MTC-00004053

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:05am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs,
    I am of the opinion that the Microsoft settlement amounts to a 
`a slap on the wrist,' and am extremely concerned that 
it will result only in an increase of the current Microsoft 
monopoly. Please do not play into their hands.

[[Page 24413]]

    R/S,
    Scott R. Taylor



MTC-00004054

From: Duane C. Mallory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern:
    I read with some interest the deal worked out between the 
Government and Microsoft: I must say that I really can not believe 
the outcome. The government, by winning the case against Microsoft, 
is in a position to be sure that justice is served. From everything 
that I have read, and believe I understand, the following is what I 
think of the current settlement.
    1) Microsoft has been found guilty of Anti-trust violations.
    2) Microsoft, under the current settlement, is not only let off 
the hook, but is in a stronger position than ever before in that 
they can decide what constitutes action required on their part.
    3) Open source software, such as Linux, Apache, SendMail, and 
SAMBA, are going to be damaged by this settlement as Microsoft will 
argue that they are NOT a Commercial / Business entity in the true 
sense_they are Not-for Profit entities. This basically means 
that any access to API`s, code, or other areas that could benefit 
these companies in an effort to compete fairly will not be available 
to them.
    4) There is absolutely NO MONETARY FINE imposed on the company 
for their crimes!
    All in all I would say that the settlement is laughable. 
Unfortunately, I believe there are quite a number of companies and 
organizations who will not be laughing if this settlement is allowed 
to go through as is. It is sad to think that, in a great country 
such as ours, perhaps crime does pay after all.
    Best Regards,
    Duane Mallory
    CC:Duane.Mallory@asus.net@inetgw



MTC-00004055

From: jdh@sparky.hunter@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:04am
Subject: Against DOJ sweatheart deals!
    The DOJ should be ashamed.
    I use UNIX. Why should MS be allow to penalize me by using UNIX 
to get rid of UNIX??
    The whole US can see what a weak sweatheart deal they`re trying 
to make. Its no wonder consumer trust and trust in the government is 
at an all time low.
    My option:
    1) let MS keep their broken code which is their 
property_we DON`T want it
    a) we DON`T want it furthed_we want it LESSENED
    b) so we DON`T want the code pubished !!!
    c) we DON`T want MS_we want [Sun, Apple, Linux, AIX, HP-
UX, ...]
    d) the LESS distribution of their terrible code the BETTER
    2) force them to comply with standards or halt sales a) like 
netscape plugins, like ANSI C, etc...
    3) all `giveaways' should be effective to EFFECTED 
CONSUMERS in the form you know damn well we`re asking for. And that 
ISN`T a giveaway to the government school funds in your pockets: you 
asses!
    That`s the three fingered solute to MS_who have wasted 
millions of manpower hours in needless lock-ups_and litterally 
years of mine. Intentional lies about a product can`t be 
disclaimed_even a fool would know that.
    I read all their damn `developer' lies as a 
kid_for years_until I was an adult and realized how they 
had lied. They owe me for that. MS can stuff it. I might add that 
their `we`re allowed to lie' `contract' 
didn`t apply to me as a minor; as such contracts are invalid with 
minors.
    MS has harmed several of my development projects intentionally 
due to their childish competitive bull_stifling science and 
development: for instance: database connectiviety for Mathematica to 
meantion one. But do I have recourse?? No_thank to you people!
    Ah yes...
    Have a BAD day
    John D. Hendrickson



MTC-00004056

From: Susan Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:17am
Subject: The microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I never do anything like this, but I feel so strongly that I 
must speak out about this travisty. Microsoft has brought mediocrity 
and a complacency for inferior software to the software market. 
Before Microsoft, any company who dared to ship a product so riddled 
with bugs and defects as the microsoft products would have gone out 
of business.
    People are fed up with microsoft, but have nothing else to use, 
so they tolerate the poor products and poor support. Letting 
Microsoft get away with putting their software in schools for free 
is rewarding Microsoft for their illegal activities. That will allow 
another generation to be brainwashed into using microsoft products 
before they even get out into the real world. I am enclosing an 
article from one of Microsoft`s own user publications, which says it 
better than I can, and reflects how most of us out here feel.
    Thank you for reading this_the microsoft article follows
    Susan Dwyer
    * AN ANALYSIS AND OPINION OF THE STATES` PROPOSED MICROSOFT 
REMEDY As expected, on Friday the District of Columbia and the nine 
remaining US states allied against Microsoft presented their 
proposed remedy for Microsoft`s antitrust case. After the watered-
down and ineffectual proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
US Department of Justice (DOJ) and nine other US states last month, 
I didn`t expect much from this proposed remedy. But this proposal is 
far more realistic and pragmatic than the earlier proposed 
settlement, and I strongly urge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to 
wholeheartedly reject the DOJ agreement and adopt this proposed 
remedy instead. In this analysis and opinion, I`ll examine the 
remedial proposals the states have presented and explain why they 
represent a more suitable punishment for Microsoft`s repeated 
violations of US antitrust law.
    But first, a quick review. The US Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia unanimously agreed with the earlier ruling that 
Microsoft had illegally maintained its desktop OS monopoly by 
`suppressing emerging technologies that threatened to 
undermine its monopoly control.' Microsoft prevented these 
technologies, which included Sun`s Java and Netscape`s Web browser, 
among others, from succeeding by maintaining what the Court of 
Appeals called the `applications barrier to entry,' in 
which a dominant platform such as Windows stays in power by keeping 
consumers locked in. As noted in the proposed remedy, `the 
applications barrier to entry, coupled with Microsoft`s 90 percent 
plus market share, gave Microsoft the power to protect its 
`dominant operating system irrespective of quality' and 
to `stave off even superior new rivals.'' To 
specifically combat Java and Netscape, Microsoft `aggressively 
and unlawfully prevented these rivals from achieving the widespread 
distribution they needed to attract software development and 
ultimately make other platforms meaningful competitors with 
Microsoft`s Windows operating system.' The proposed remedy 
also notes that the US Court of Appeals `cataloged an 
extensive list of anticompetitive [and] exclusionary acts by which 
Microsoft artificially bolstered the applications barrier to entry, 
including commingling the software code for its own middleware with 
that of its monopoly operating system, thereby eliminating 
distribution opportunities for competing middleware; threatening to 
withhold and withholding critical technical information from 
competing middleware providers, thereby allowing Microsoft 
middleware to obtain significant advantages over its rivals; 
threatening to withhold porting of critical Microsoft software 
applications and financial benefits from those who even considered 
aiding its rivals; contractually precluding [PC makers] and 
ultimately end users from the opportunity to choose competitive 
software; and even deceiving software developers to conceal the fact 
that the software they were writing would be compatible only with 
Microsoft`s platform.' The list is long and, sadly, only a 
subset of the strategies that Microsoft has employed over the years 
to stifle competition and innovation.
    After losing its appeal, Microsoft entered a new phase of its 
antitrust trial. Kollar-Kotelly recommended that the company attempt 
to settle the case, and the court eventually provided a mediator. 
Then on October 31, the last day of mediation, Microsoft and the DOJ 
shocked the world by announcing a settlement. However, Microsoft 
critics immediately denounced the settlement as being too lenient on 
the company. Even I referred to the settlement as `a travesty 
of justice that leaves an illegal monopoly in a position of power, 
enabling Microsoft to continue harming competitors, partners, and 
even customers' (see the URL at the end of this article for my 
take on the DOJ and Microsoft settlement).

[[Page 24414]]

    As a result, the District of Columbia and nine of the 18 states 
allied against Microsoft refused to sign the agreement, calling on 
antitrust precedent and noting that `the suit has been a 
futile exercise if the Government proves a violation but fails to 
secure a remedy adequate to redress it,' and `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.'' So the states` 
proposed remedy, delivered Friday as required, addresses these 
issues and punishes Microsoft for its illegal behavior. And the 
proposal elegantly explains why Microsoft should be punished in a 
manner more appropriate than that in the DOJ settlement.
    `A meaningful remedy must do more, however, than merely 
prohibit a recurrence of Microsoft`s past misdeeds,' the 
proposed remedy reads. `[First,] it must also seek to restore 
the competitive balance so that competing middleware developers and 
those who write applications based on that middleware are not 
unfairly handicapped in that competition by Microsoft`s past 
exclusionary acts, and [secondly,] it must be forward-looking with 
respect to technological and marketplace developments, so that 
today`s emerging competitive threats are protected from the very 
anticompetitive conduct that Microsoft has so consistently and 
effectively employed in the past. Only then can the applications 
barrier to entry be reduced and much-needed competition be given a 
fair chance to emerge.'
    The states even specifically take a jab at the proposed DOJ and 
Microsoft settlement. `Unlike the previously announced 
settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft, these remedies create a 
real prospect of achieving what the DOJ said it intended to 
accomplish: `Stop Microsoft from engaging in unlawful conduct, 
prevent any recurrence of that conduct in the future, and restore 
competition in the software market.''
    Here are the states` proposed remedies. I`ve ordered them by 
magnitude, with the proposed remedies I consider the most important 
listed first.
    1. Microsoft should be required to license its Office source 
code so that competitors can sell Office on rival platforms. 
`To begin to erode the applications barrier to entry that was 
enhanced by Microsoft`s unlawful behavior, and thereby begin to 
`pry open to competition a market that has been closed by 
defendants' illegal restraints,` Microsoft should be required 
to auction to a third party the right to port Microsoft Office to 
competing operating systems,' the proposal reads. Also, 
Microsoft should be forced to continue offering its Macintosh Office 
product, with the stipulation that each revision of that product 
ship within 60 days of each Windows version of the suite and include 
similar functionality. And Microsoft should be forced to auction off 
Office licenses so that at least three companies can port the suite 
to the platforms of their choice; Microsoft will receive a royalty 
for each auction but no further payments. And Microsoft will be 
required to give the third parties all the technical information 
needed to make the ports successful.
    This controversial remedy hits Microsoft right in the gut 
because it hands over some of the company`s crown jewels_the 
source code to its dominant Office products_to competitors and 
opens up the Office productivity market once again. Critics have 
long maintained that Microsoft`s OS monopoly is unfairly bolstered 
by users` reliance on Office, and this proposal seeks to answer that 
complaint. Indeed, given that many of Office`s features have found 
their way into Windows over time and that the Office team has had 
unfair and early access to internal Windows technologies for years, 
it`s only fair that competitors get the same benefits.
    2. Microsoft should be forced to open-source Internet Explorer 
(IE). Much of the original trial focused on Microsoft`s illegal 
bundling of IE in Windows solely to harm its competitor Netscape; 
the Appellate Court finally ruled that Microsoft designed IE not to 
make browsing more attractive to users, but to discourage PC makers 
from distributing rival products. In other words, the company 
`integrated' IE into Windows solely to harm Netscape, 
not to help its customers. `Eliminating Netscape and 
establishing [IE] as the dominant browser was a critical component 
of Microsoft`s monopoly maintenance strategy,' the proposed 
remedy notes. `Given that Microsoft`s browser dominance was 
achieved to bolster the operating system monopoly, the remedial 
prescription must involve undoing that dominance to the extent it is 
still possible to do so. Accordingly, the appropriate solution is to 
mandate open-source licensing for [IE], thereby ensuring at a 
minimum that others have full access to this critical platform and 
that Microsoft cannot benefit unduly from the browser dominance that 
it gained as part of its unlawful monopolization of the operating 
system market.' If the court enacts this proposal, Microsoft 
will have to disclose and license the source code for all current 
and future versions of IE and any related Web-browsing functionality 
found in various versions of Windows. This action will give 
competitors and other developers a perpetual, royalty-free license 
to create any derived products they want, without fear of 
retaliation from Microsoft. As with the Office porting proposal, 
this proposal hits right at the heart of the matter and is an 
appropriate remedy for a company that abused competitors, partners, 
and users through its anticompetitive bundling of IE and Windows.
    3. Microsoft`s bundled software should be unbundled from 
Windows. As with the previous proposal, this requirement relates to 
Microsoft`s illegal commingling of IE and other middleware with 
Windows, which deterred PC makers and users from installing 
competing products. The states give Microsoft two options: Either 
cease bundling middleware such as IE, Windows Media Player (WMP), 
and Windows Messenger in all current and future versions of Windows, 
or start selling Windows versions that don`t include those bundled 
applications. If the court chooses the latter option, those 
unbundled Windows versions should cost significantly less than the 
versions that include bundled software and should function properly. 
This requirement applies to Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, 
and Windows NT 4.0, but not to Windows 98 or Win98 SE, for some 
reason.
    Again, I endorse any remedy that addresses a specific area in 
which the court found Microsoft guilty of breaking the law. Indeed, 
the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously 
upheld the earlier District Court ruling that Microsoft bundled 
middleware such as IE solely to `deter computer manufacturers 
from installing a rival browser such as Netscape Navigator. 
Microsoft offered no specific or substantiated evidence to justify 
such commingling, and such commingling had an anticompetitive 
effect.' Users and PC makers should be able to choose whether 
to install Microsoft or third-party middleware, and this proposal 
makes the choice possible. Contrast this solution to Windows XP, 
where users can`t uninstall components such as WMP, Windows Movie 
Maker (WMM), and Windows Messenger, let alone replace them with 
other software.
    4. If Microsoft knowingly violates the terms of this remedy, the 
company should be forced to license the source code of the product 
in question. Given Microsoft`s repeated violation of previous 
agreements, this proposed remedy is key. If the court finds in the 
future that Microsoft illegally commingled software code into 
Windows, for example, the company will have to freely license the 
Windows source code to the appropriate parties. `If the Court 
determines that Microsoft has knowingly committed an act of Material 
Non-Compliance, the Court may, in addition to any other action, 
convene a hearing to consider an order requiring Microsoft to 
license its source code for the Microsoft software that is 
implicated by the act of Material Non-Compliance to anyone 
requesting such a license for the purpose of facilitating 
interoperability between the relevant Microsoft product and any non-
Microsoft product,' the ruling reads. If the court finds that 
Microsoft knowingly engaged in a pattern of noncompliance, the 
company will have to pay fines and suffer further appropriate 
remedies.
    This remedy is crucial because it openly warns Microsoft about 
the consequences of its future behavior, giving the company no 
wiggle room to `reinterpret' its legally binding conduct 
remedies as it has so often in the past.
    5. Microsoft should be forced to adhere to industry standards. 
Microsoft frequently `embraces' open standards only to 
`extend' them with proprietary additions that make 
interoperability with non-Windows platforms difficult or impossible. 
The states refer to this practice as the `co-opting and/or 
undermining of industry standards,' and they point to 
Microsoft`s specific behavior regarding Java: The company 
`purposely deceived software developers into believing that 
the Microsoft Java programming tools had cross-platform capability 
with Sun-based Java' when they didn`t. Under terms of this 
proposal, Microsoft would again have two options: The company could 
adopt and

[[Page 24415]]

implement industry standards into its products and not modify them 
at all. Or it could modify these technologies and supply the changes 
to any party that requests them. Furthermore, Microsoft couldn`t 
require third parties to use standards-based technologies it had 
modified.
    This is another compelling request, because it addresses a 
specific behavior Microsoft has long been guilty of. If enacted, 
Microsoft`s embrace-and-extend strategy will be open to competitors 
and thus rendered moot.
    6. Microsoft should be forced to distribute Java with Windows 
and IE. According to the states, `Microsoft`s destruction of 
the cross-platform threat posed by Sun`s Java technology was a 
critical element of the unlawful monopoly maintenance violation 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft continues to enjoy the 
benefits of its unlawful conduct, as Sun`s Java technology does not 
provide the competitive threat today that it posed prior to 
Microsoft`s campaign of anticompetitive conduct. Because an 
appropriate antitrust remedy decree should, among other things, 
attempt `to deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation,' Microsoft must be required to distribute Java with 
its platform software (i.e., its operating systems and [IE] 
browser), thereby ensuring that Java receives the widespread 
distribution that it could have had absent Microsoft`s unlawful 
behavior, and increasing the likelihood that Java can serve as a 
platform to reduce the applications barrier to entry.' Under 
the proposal`s terms, this bundling would continue for 10 years and 
would require Microsoft to continue developing modern versions of 
Java that conform to Sun`s latest Java specifications.
    This is the only part of the proposal I disagree with, largely 
because Sun has never opened up Java to an internationally 
recognized standards body (I likewise reject any argument that Java 
is a de facto standard). During the company`s original trial, the 
court asked Bill Gates about Microsoft bundling Netscape Navigator 
in Windows. Gates replied that that would be like requiring Coca-
Cola to include one Pepsi in each of its six-packs of Coke. I agree 
that such a requirement is ludicrous, as is requiring Microsoft to 
bundle Java with Windows. The remaining proposed remedies are less 
exciting and more closely mimic the remedies in the DOJ`s proposed 
settlement. Thus, I`ll cover them more succinctly.
    7. Microsoft should be required to reveal all interoperability 
technologies so that `Microsoft middleware developers [don`t] 
receive preferential disclosure of technical information over rival 
middleware developers.'
    8. Microsoft should have to license its intellectual rights when 
necessary to meet the requirements of this remedy. Some of the 
aforementioned proposals will require Microsoft to license its 
intellectual property to third parties. The company will have to do 
so when appropriate.
    9. Microsoft should have to provide uniform and 
nondiscriminatory licensing to PC makers, regardless of their 
relationships with Microsoft and Microsoft competitors.
    10. Microsoft should be prohibited from entering into agreements 
that would harm competition. Furthermore, `Microsoft must also 
be prohibited from taking certain actions that could unfairly 
disadvantage its would-be competitors, whether by knowingly 
interfering with the performance of their software with no advance 
warning or entering into certain types of contracts that could 
unreasonably foreclose competing middleware providers.'
    11. Microsoft should be banned from retaliating against 
companies or users that choose non-Microsoft technologies.
    12. Microsoft should be prevented from forcing PC makers and 
users to choose Microsoft-only solutions. No Microsoft middleware 
can be included in Windows unless it can also be removed and 
replaced by PC makers and end users.
    13. Microsoft should be prohibited from requiring partners to 
sign noncompete agreements, such as the agreement it allegedly tried 
to enter into with Netscape.
    14. Microsoft should be required to undergo regular compliance 
certification to ensure that it meets the requirements of the ruling 
against it. This certification will include an internal compliance 
officer, annual compliance certifications, a compliance committee 
consisting of at least three members of Microsoft`s Board of 
Directors, and extensive internal-document retention.
    15. A Special Master should be empowered to promptly investigate 
any future complaints against Microsoft.
    16. Microsoft should be required to report any potential 
technology or corporate acquisitions to the plaintiffs for review 
because the company has used such acquisitions in the past to extend 
its monopoly power.
    Folks, this proposal represents your tax dollars at work. I 
salute the states of California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia for erecting a logical and workable remedy that addresses, 
rather than rewards, Microsoft`s illegal, anticompetitive behavior. 
Just weeks ago, it seemed that Microsoft would escape punishment, 
but these proposed remedies give new hope that justice will be 
served. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly can at least find a happy middle 
ground between the DOJ`s proposed settlement and this more 
reasonable set of remedies, we might see competition and innovation 
return to the computer industry. If I`m not mistaken, that was the 
original point of this legal nightmare.
    Susan Dwyer
    State of Connecticut
    Judicial Branch
    Information Technology Division
    99 East River Drive
    6th floor
    East Hartford, CT 06108
    voice: 860.282.6467
    fax: 860.282.6401
    e-mail: susan.dwyer@jud.state.ct.us



MTC-00004057

From: Robin (Roblimo) Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:25am
Subject: Criminals must be punished
    If Microsoft can be convicted of criminal behavior in a federal 
court and then have the Department of Justice decide no punishment 
is warranted, other criminals are going to expect the same 
treatment. We might as well not have a DoJ if we are going to 
prosecute criminals, convict them, and then not punish them.
    Or does Microsoft get special treatment because of large 
contributions to the Republican Party and individual Republican 
candidates? Either way, the DoJ`s failure to ask the judge to impose 
harsh penalties against Microsoft sets a bad precedent.
    Anyone who has raised a child knows that when you threaten 
punishment and don`t carry out your threat, the child behaves worse 
than ever in the future. That child`s brothers and sisters, too, 
learn that their parent`s threats are toothless and can be ignored.
    The other potential message here is, `Give lots of money 
to the political party in power, and you can break federal laws 
without fear of punishment.'
    Let`s not send either message. Let`s punish lawbreakers, both so 
that they don`t repeat their crimes and so that other potential 
lawbreakers get the message that we Americans don`t tolerate illegal 
behavior, even by people or companies who have enough money that 
they can buy access to highly-placed government officials.
    Thank you in advance for doing the right thing, both as 
Americans yourselves and as public servants who work for *all* U.S. 
citizens.
    Robin Miller
    6665 Aspern Drive
    Elkridge MD 21075
    phone 410-215-2894



MTC-00004058

From: Praising Jesus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/11/01 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I am the pawn in all this litigation. I am the consumer. I 
continue to read about the `harm' Microsoft has done to 
me and how the damage should be mitigated. Poppycock! Microsoft has 
only helped me. I have bought almost every product they make from a 
Systems or Office perspective. When MS-DOS came out, it was 
fashioned after some very arcane programming principles which made 
it difficult to use (CP/M). Microsoft heard our cry and MS-DOS was 
continually improved by adding features like a text editor, a file 
manager, etc., etc. many things that were being charged hundreds of 
dollars for, Microsoft incorporated in their next version of the 
Operating System to make my life easier, cheaper, faster and make 
computing more accessible to the lay person. When it was clear that 
Apple had a good idea with Graphical Interfaces, Windows was born. 
Again, missing almost everything I needed to work with it. 
Aftermarket products were offered at hundreds and thousands of 
dollars by all the companies out there. So bad was the bilking of 
the public, the shareware market was born to save us from software 
authors.
    Microsoft, however, continued to hear our pl