[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Pages 24932-25567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-220503]


From: Rodney Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern,
    Frankly I cannot believe this lawsuit lasted this long. There is 
no question that an excessive and unfair settlement will further 
destroy the software business. Microsoft has been the driving force 
for bringing the price of both software and hardware down. Microsoft 
not only has not hurt the consumer, but has radically helped.
    You only need to look @ apple as a comparison. Apple has indeed 
harmed the consumer with unreasonably high prices. Apple has clearly 
harmed innovation except for the chosen few. Microsoft has in fact 
had open and published interfaces to their software for years. I 
have used this interface many times to extend my vertical market 
applications. This has allowed me to add massive power to my 
applications without having to charge my clients.
    In closing I would highly suggest that you focus your energy on 
something else. While some of Microsoft's competitors have been 
hurt, must are far to large to even qualify under the monopoly 
protections. Companies like Netscape were clearly not hurt selling 
for more than 4 billion dollars. Many other companies that have gone 
away, have done so because of bad UI, marketing and faulty feature 
    Rodney Haas


From: Beckers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ et al:
    Please help stop the feeding frenzy at Microsoft and consumers' 
expense. Microsoft delivers fairly sophisticated products at 
reasonable prices, and do not manufacture hardware other than basic 
peripherals such as keyboards. We need them creating superior 
products to help balance our trade deficit. Instead, you might want 
to investigate ``proprietary'' software products by companies who 
really want to prevent the establishment of industry standards and 
    Rick Becker
    California, USA


From: Richard Paietta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:57pm
Subject: The Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This suit should have never been undertaken in the first place. 
It was done by the previous administration for the benefit of 
Microsoft's competition. At no time was the public hurt or at issue 
in this case. This action has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars 
for the benefit of a few (e.g. AOL, Sun, Etc). Not only has this 
cost the American taxpayer in dollars that could have been spent 
elsewhere it has cause the present downturn in our economy. DOJ was 
right in settling the issue and the remaining 9 states that are home 
to Microsoft's competition should be forced to settle. This was a 
case of bad law and the legal system showing its worst side. There 
is no excuse for the Federal Government having to act as the 
protector of Microsoft's competition. The law was put on the books 
for the protection of the public. The market place in a free economy 
determines who stays in business and who does not. This suit has 
also cost many of us who have invested in Microsoft for their 
retirement. What do you intend to do to help, since this has cost 
many large sums of their retirement investments. Settle the case and 
ask to judge to force a resolution with the hold out states. It is 
time that DOJ corrected the mistakes of the past administration.
    Richard L. Paietta


From: Babafar@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft and end this litigation. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties. It will be good 
for the economy. Thank you.
    Marge Ferrari, 135 Westwood Drive, Novato, CA 94945


From: Maverick775@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this case ASAP. I am very tired of disgruntled 
companies who are not capable of competing on their own trying to 
use the courts to further their position in the world of tough 
competition. I thought capitalism is what made us a free enterprise 
nation, and competition is what enables the best of the best to help 
build this country on a world wide basis. I still do not understand 
why the previous administration wanted to punish a remarkable 
company like Microsoft. Let's get on with life, stop wasting 
taxpayers money and let the best companies win. That's what it is 
all about.
    Michael D. Arndt


From: Jerome Montez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Settlement
    My opinon on this case is leave private enterprizes alone the 
goverment should stay out of it all they manage to do is drive up 
prices for the consumer


From: EthelGee@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is appropriate and should be 
    Ethel Gardner
    175 e. 74 st.
    New York, N.Y.


From: Marx Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to know who determined that the break up of 
Microsoft would be in the consumers best interest. I would bet it 
came from a disgruntled competitor like Netscape. Surely it could 
not have come from the same people that thought that breaking up 
AT&T was good for the consumer. I feel that to penalize Microsoft 
for continuing to develop new technology is wrong. It sends a 
message to others that may want to develop and market a product, 
that if they get too big or too popular and the competition can no 
longer provide an equal quality product for a competitive price, 
that someone well sue them and try to destroy what they have done. 
If I am successful, the government will take away that success. 
Enough is enough! Why is it that the courts have recommended a 
settlement and Microsoft has agreed to it, that their are still 
those that oppose that settlement. They seem intent on destroying 
Microsoft. How much do those people give back to the people 
responsible for their success? How much do they give to charity? How 
much? I feel that if Microsoft continues to come under assault, that 
the inevitable result will be less new innovation and new technology 
and higher prices to pay for it. I am sorry, but my idea of the 
American Way is not to Pay more for less!
    Marx Heller
    Williamstown NJ
    I VOTE!!


From: Zelia Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle now.


From: Gus407@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:00pm
Subject: Settlement
    In all of this litagation, I have never seen one consumer come 
forward and actually state that the packages that Microsoft bundled 
together hurt them. I for one am glad Microsoft put these programs 
together on my computer. If I would have had to go out and purchase 
these programs separately, I probably would not have a computer 
    Thank You;


From: Bruzer703@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a middle class worker, saving for retirement...with a fair 
amount of Microsoft stock in my portfolio. Ever since the Reno/
Clinton ``Justice'' Department abused Microsoft through the courts, 
I have had my retirement portfolio abused also. The settlement has 
been accepted by DOJ and Microsoft, our nation's economy has already

[[Page 24933]]

taken enough hits, let Microsoft and the American economy serve our 
interests by growth and innovation. We have gotten rid of Reno/
Clinton, now let's get rid of the droppings they afflicted us with.
    Kevin Smith


From: Robert Heffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am writing to urge settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case 
now. I have personally benefited enormously in my work from the 
greater efficiency of Microsoft products, particularly the 
standardization of the PC platform. Although I am not a lawyer, I 
believe that this was a dubious case from the beginning, pushed by 
Microsoft competitors who had been soundly trounced in the 
    Ending this case now, when our country is struggling to regain 
economic growth, is in the best interest of our nation's 
international competitive posture, and, hence, very much in the 
public interest.
    Thank you.
    Robert H. Heffner


From: WEckstine@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop harrassing US business. There is no harm to 
the public by completing the Microsoft settlement now. To the 
contrary there is more harm to consumers and America to keep up the 
battle to assist a few of the competors.


From: Bmnov20@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    PLEASE settle this lawsuit with Microsoft with no further 
litigation. It has gone on long enough for a company that I feel has 
follwed the path that the strength of this country was built on. 
They started from nothing and built it into a very successful 
company. If other companies can't compete then they shouldn't be 
crybabies, but find a different product or become better competitors 
without running to the fed gov to solve their problems. Bill Linker 
PS: this is the first time I have tried to make my voice heard but I 
feel strongly enough about this to respond.


From: TweedieRoy@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:02pm
    I urge you to proceed and complete the Microsoft settlement 
during the first quarter of 2002. This long standing settlement need 
to be resolved NOW. I also urge you to accept Microsoft's offer to 
supply computer equipment to our school system and NOT cash. The use 
of additional cash in our schools will not improve the level of 
education of our children--computers will. I am suspicious of the 
motives of our administrators that the cash may be used for their 
own pet projects and wage increases. I don't trust the integrity of 
our school administrators. Throwing $$$ at the education system will 
not improved the education level of our children, it hasn't in the 
past i.e., lottery etc.
    Roy Tweedie


From: Brownbearman@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft never did anything wrong...in business you deserve 
what you invent and earn from that invention!


From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:03pm
Subject: Enough already, callit quits
    Dear Sirs'
    Enough of this wasting the tax payers money, so that a few 
lawyers can make a killing of a bigger settlement. The settlement is 
fair ---end it all.
    Thank you
    Lawrence Novak


From: Candace Hawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Atty. General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to commend the DOJ in it's wise settlement with 
Microsoft. I feel this needs to be wrapped up and completed and 
quickly as possible for the sake of the technology sector, our 
economy and Microsoft to restore the status quo. If it is at all 
possible for the DOJ to intervene with the nine states still 
pursuing further remedies of Microsoft that would also be supported. 
Without Microsoft we would not have as a tool in every home the PC, 
we never would have had the ease of use we have as well. I feel it 
is a HUGE mistake to a country to go after it's crown jewel. Happy 
New Year.
    Candace Hawthorne
    Metairie, LA 70001


From: Rose Rothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: Settlement
    Enough is enough. Let this case be settled now. This company has 
done more for the American economy and for all us who are computer 
folks. If it were not for Microsoft, we would not be where we are 
now. It takes people who are innovative and visonaries to bring 
forth products as Microsoft has brought to the world. Again, please 
put an end to this case without damaging this inovative, visionary 
    Rose and Dietmar Rothe
    Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA


From: Lenk10@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that the DOJ should put the Microsoft 
litigation behind us. Microsoft has continually produced an 
excellent product with each new release better than its previous 
software and generally at lower prices. Microsoft has done this 
while incurring substantial costs associated with litigation and 
settlements. As a user I have never been forced to use Microsoft 
software, I have always had available to me a multiplicity of 
software to choose from and have selected support software based 
upon capability and support.
    I implore DOJ to let Microsoft get on with its primary business. 
From a user's point of view they have never been a monopoly as 
alternatives were always available to me, Microsoft was just a cause 
which the Janet Reno DOJ used to keep people from asking why some 
other more pertinent issues were not being investigated.
    Dr. L. Kreuter


From: pernoid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:08pm
    The Microsoft settlement reached by the Court Of Appeals should 
stand & be the final end of the Microsoft litigation. This will 
definitely be in the interest of consumers, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Glory Perno


From: Borden Nettles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please move on to productive work and get out of Microsoft 
business. I have been ashamed of our government in this case because 
I believe the entire lawsuit was based on political motives rather 
than the law. I further believe the USDOJ action and the resulting 
media coverage in this case has in part been responsible for reduced 
confidence in the stock market. Thank you for recording my opinion. 
I am
    Borden Nettles
    Franklin, TN 37067


From: Charles H Caplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's get this over with. Approve it as it stands and let's get 
on with business.
    Charles H Caplan
    Bellevue, WA


From: JCDMORT@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I want to applaud the Federal Government's settlement of the 

[[Page 24934]]

case and hope that the agreement willbe accepted by the Fed and the 
States. Please use this as one vote to continue on the path that has 
been proposed and let Microsoft get on with business.
    It is my opinion that the competitors of Microsoft have 
continued stir the pot and to encourage the remaining states that 
have not settled to ask for more limitations. The continued 
litigation that these remaining groups are attempting is causing 
confusion over Windows development for both third party developers 
and users of Windows. Wasn't the example of the IBM case where 
billions were wasted in trying to limit the size and power of a 
wealthy Corporation enough to show that the market place will do in 
time what will be done without Govt. Intervention?
    It seems that this is a case of State Government attempting to 
squeeze a successful Corporation for funds because the source of 
their usual funding (Sales Tax) is drying up. What possible good can 
the States litigation do for the consumers?
    The Clinton Administration's insistence of following through 
with this litigation has cost Technical stockholders a considerable 
amount in share prices over the life of the litigation. 
Additionally, the cost of the actual litigation has had to be a very 
costly drain on Federal Govt and Microsoft's resources. It would 
seem that this effort would be better spent getting bad guys rather 
than chasing one of our star Corporations in the Technical world. 
Now to have the States trying to squeeze more from Microsoft is only 
depressing the Tech market and innovation even more.
    Please curb the Antitrust Division and stop these unnecessary 
probes of our successful Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, Intel, 
AOL, Cisco and AT&T. Govt. should not be creating problems for our 
leading Tech Corporations that have put America in the leading 
position in the Information Processing Industry.


From: Greg Sprinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement--Microsoft vs USA
    For the public record:
    As someone intimately familiar with computing in general and the 
computer industry as a whole, I have witnessed firsthand the adverse 
effects of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices and their 
devastating effects on consumers.
    In the last year alone, the computing public has lost one of the 
most promising consumer orientated desktop operating systems to come 
along in the last ten years, namely BeOS. BeOS had technology that 
simplified the computing experience for the average consumer, while 
at the same time had technology that was vastly superior to what is 
available under the Windows operating systems. The single most 
reason that BeOS could not succeed in the market, is the absolute 
death grip Microsoft has on OEM's and total control of the boot 
loader process.
    As a consumer of computer software and a concerned citizen of 
the United States, I have a real problem with the proposed 
settlement. I cannot see how the proposed settlement even pretends 
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been 
found guilty. The proposed settlement contains no penalties--
monetarily or otherwise. None! It does not nothing to provide 
further competition or halt Microsoft's continuing maintenance of 
their monopoly of desktop operating systems. Perhaps the most 
disturbing part of the proposed settlement is the provision for 
Microsoft to determine who their competition actually is in regards 
to revealing API's and source code.
    While I believe the initial pursuit to break up the company was 
the best course of action, I would be willing to accept the 
alternatives being put forth by the nine states who have refused to 
endorse the proposed settlement. To add, the barest minimum of 
remedies possible should include the following features:
    *Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers. [Consumers who do not wish to purchase 
Microsoft products are not forced to do so].
    *Prices of Microsoft products through OEM's must mirror those 
same products in the retail channel so that products can compete on 
merit and not price alone. [Consumers must have a choice in 
competing office suite products at similar prices].
    *In addition to opening the Windows application program 
interface [API's], the specifications of Microsoft's present and 
future document file formats must be made public, so that documents 
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other 
makers, on Microsoft's or other operating systems. [No consumer or 
organization must choose Microsoft products based on proprietary 
file formats or falsely perceived standards].
    *Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in 
full and approved by an independent network protocol body. 
Furthermore, the controlling body should be a government agency such 
as the National Bureau of Standards and should apply to the industry 
as a whole. [All protocols must be available through an ``open 
source'' method of development with a small number of comitters to 
fix bugs and plug security leaks].
    *Microsoft must be made to realize that other operating systems 
have the right to exist and they shall do nothing to erase any or 
all entries in the master boot record. [Microsoft operating systems 
shall include utility software to enable dual booting of other 
operating systems when detected on computer hard drives--not just 
their own].
    The proposed settlement seems to have been made in haste and in 
light of of the attacks of September 11th with little or no thought 
for the long range implications--for the economy or national 
security. Many have accused the DOJ of a ``sellout'', but my opinion 
is that they are seeking a quick fix in order to revitalize economic 
    In a study released a year ago by the highly respected Center 
for Strategic and International Studies, Microsoft's operating 
systems actually poses a national security risk. Open source 
advocates have made a compelling case that prove publicly available 
and open programs, protocols and file formats are much more secure. 
We are a nation of computers, networks and a vast dependence on 
technology and as such, are a prime target for cyber terrorism 
attacks of untold proportions.
    I believe we, as a nation, are at a critical junction at the 
cross roads of the information technology age. In many respects, we 
are in the same position as that of the early days of the industrial 
revolution--where we had railroads of different scales, track 
widths, etc. In the case of the railroads, the problem was one of 
standardization and it caused loss of productivity and timely 
delivery. The computer industry desperately needs standardization in 
the same way; in protocols, file formats and programs. This, I 
believe, is the single most important part of this whole issue and 
the fact that Microsoft's sole business plan can be summed up as 
``control the standard''.
    In closing, all are surely in agreement that the resolution of 
this case is of great importance, not just now but for many years to 
come. This suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more 
important to the health of the nation than is a hasty one.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Greg Sprinkle
    3907 Lanyard Ct.
    Chester, VA 23831-7379
    email: hornsmoker@yahoo.com


From: Lavajup@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    sirs, this suit has been tried to death.the remaining states are 
arguing for microsfts competitors in their home states not for some 
imagined u.s. citizens who supposedly are being overcharged for 
microsoft products.these competitors should compete with their 
products against microsoft not with their lawyers.let us comlply 
with the decision already in place and get out on with moving 
business ahead.
    george o. mills
    lavallette,nj 08735


From: James Rhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Selltlement
    It is my firm belief that any more litigation against Microsoft 
would once more plunge the tec. markets into another freefall just 
as two years ago when weak insecure corporations turned to the 
Clinton justice department for help. If the government wants to 
bring on another down cycle, just keep pounding away at the one 
company that truly

[[Page 24935]]

knows how to innovate and develop solutions to complex problems. Why 
is it that people who know how to get things done are always being 
attacked by those who can't? The more I see the law being applied in 
this country, the less respect I have for it. Lawyers, journalists, 
politicians--they build nothing yet suck the life out of everything.


From: Paul Monson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I have been a computer user for many years. I owned one of the 
first IBM-PC produced and have continually upgraded. I remember the 
days when competing Operating Systems were available and I am glad 
those days are gone. It was a nightmare having software that would 
work under one operating system but not another. I know monopolies 
in general are undesirable but in the case of computer operating 
systems they are much better than the alternative. I also do not 
have any problem with ``bundling'' of the internet browser. For many 
years I used Netscape as my preferred browser even when Internet 
Explorer was the default browser installed with the Microsoft 
operating system. I have now switched to Internet Explorer simply 
because it is now better than Netscape, but I would still be running 
Netscape if it were superior.
    I think it is time to lay-off of Microsoft, I believe that most 
people feel as I do that in general we are much better off with 
Microsoft as is rather that broken-up or otherwise handicapped. I 
have found that most Microsoft products are superior to competing 
products> Why can the public not be able to use such superior 
    I am not a Microsoft employee but a individual public citizen.
    Paul Monson


From: Michael Beers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello, my name is Michael Beers. I'm a hard-working friendly 
American male. I'll make it short. Settle the Microsoft case now. It 
is unfortunate in this country that success, when deemed 
``excessive,'' is so despised that we have to attempt to destroy it, 
to make it small again, to make it average. Pay no attention to the 
2 billion dollars Mr. Gates gave to charity this year, to the 
stimulus his company provides our economy, and to the fact that my 
computer running his software is one of the most important objects 
in my life. Leave Microsoft alone! Leave business alone! Let the 
market decide whose products to buy.
    Keep your creepy, altruistic hands off.
    Thank you. Did I make my point clear?
    Michael Beers
    Michael Beers


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My family nor I have never worked for or had any connection to 
the Microsoft Co. and I do not own any Microsoft stock. My only 
connection is that I have a personal computer that uses Microsoft 
    It has always been my opinion that to penalize Microsoft for 
improving its software for the benefit of its customers is crazy. 
The freedom to innovate and provide better software should be 
rewarded not penalized.
    The only reason for these lawsuits is to benefit the attorneys 
and the politicians who support Microsoft's competitors.
    Charles E. Kessler
    3000 S. Graham St.
    Seattle, WA 98108


From: DEENLENUS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end this action and lets move on!
    L.C. Foster
    Tampa Fl.


From: Rick Salvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really don't understand why the Government is trying to 
destroy one of the world's best achievements. You can buy a 
Microsoft product that is reliable and utilitarian for less than 
what most attorneys charge for 2 hours of their time. Where is the 
injustice here? Their products will last a lifetime (even though 
they will be improved upon constantly). This whole thing is a big 
waste of time and money. Just look at what breaking up the phone 
company did. We now pay about 5 times as much for less service and 
have 2 to 3 bills for what once came in one every month! Even if 
some companies are considered monopolies maybe that is the most 
efficient way to do some things. Leave Microsoft alone and see if 
all the lawyers involved can add some utility to the world in stead 
of profits in their pockets. Settle the suit and let's get on with 
life and look for things that need fixing.
    Rick Salvo


From: TAURUS5164@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:16pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    I am voting for the settlement as outlined.


From: Ruth A. Lucchesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I fear that Microsoft will emerge from the Justice Department 
and and State anti-trust lawsuits with little or no penalty.
    Microsoft's offer to spend money to equip schools with their 
brand of software is certainly not a penalty for them...it is 
advertising cost. If they are permitted such an easy fate, all of 
the creative alternatives to the WINTEL platform will be effectively 
crushed. The Apple operating systems long used by schools will be 
drowned by the onslaught of Microsoft technology.
    Monopoly power in Microsoft's hands is no different than it was 
in the hands of Rockefeller and Standard Oil nor Ma Bell. Absolute 
power (monopoly) corrupts absolutely.
    Please consider the fate of other creative methods for computing 
and insist on a penalty for Microsoft that will break their 
monopoly. The company should be split into at least two separate and 
competing companies...one for software and one for an operating 
system. Judge Green's decision to split Ma Bell made possible the 
many innovations we have in telecommunications today: cell phones, 
pagers, portable phones etc. The next generation deserves the same 
opportunity to have similar computing technology at their disposal.
    Please split up Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Ruth A. Lucchesi
    127 Riverside Drive
    Northfield, IL 60093-3238


From: 4glh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement. I 
do believe that they were unfairly targeted by the government in the 
first place, but since they agreed to this settlement it should be 
honored! Then the whiners and complainers form both the other 
software companies and the Government (who really deserve none of 
Microsoft's money.. they already pay their taxes) should get out of 
it and leave them alone. Hopefully they can still succeed even after 
their unfair and I believe unlawful persecution.
    Let their settlement stand.
    GL Holmlund


From: cliff bristow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is in reference to the Microsoft Settlement...I am sick and 
tired of the mess that special interest groups are creating and feel 
that the government could best serve the people of this great nation 
by dropping everything. Microsoft has consistently given me all that 
I have paid for and so much that I didn't pay for. If I need an 
update for a Microsoft product that I use, they have always given me 
that update at no charge. Yes, they do charge me if I want to 
upgrade (like to Windows XP), but, it is my choice whether to 
upgrade or not. Microsoft is not forcing me to do something that I 
do not want to do and I for one am tired of people trying to tell me 
they are. I am a strong supporter for Microsoft and believe that 
they are serving all of my needs.

[[Page 24936]]

    Cliff Bristow
    Hebrews 11:1
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of 
things not seen.


From: TMB999@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. Just close out the settlement you already 
reached with Microsoft and move on. Microsoft is one of the world's 
greatest companies that has done more for benefiting mankind than 
almost any other company in the past 10 years. The whole technology 
revolution of the 1990's would never have happened without 
Microsoft. Microsoft bashers are just jealous of Bill Gate's 


From: HTOPILOWMD@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please finally settle this case as per the terms negotiated by 
Microsoft and the DOJ and allow Microsoft to get back to work 
writing software and stimulating the economy rather than remaining 
an unending source of income for the plaintiff's bar. It's enough, 
get rid of this case. You are not there to defend Microsoft's 
competitors from competion.
    Harvey W. Topilow, MD


From: John Petrocci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that the courts intrusion in the way a corporation 
manages it business is unwarranted. It became evident the courts 
were favoring the competitors. I liked the settlement. There are 
many other companies that could be prosecuted if judged in the same 
manner that Microsoft was scrutinized.


From: WTopper@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the settlement as I fully support Microsoft's 
freedom to innovate.
    William K. Topper
    968 E. 125 S.
    Ogden, Utah 84404-4006


From: Alan Hagerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
Subject: My opposition to the DOJ Suit vs. Microsoft
    Gentlemen....While I am by no means an expert, I do believe that 
Microsoft was not and is not now, a monopoly. I believe that 
companies who were competitors of Microsoft, got the government to 
take the lead to bring Microsoft down or at least, break it up.
    I did obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from Miami Univ, Oxford , 
Ohio and a CPCU Degree From the Insurance Institute. My major in 
college was economics. I feel that a great deal of Taxpayer money 
has been wasted and that the devastation of the stock holdings of 
Americans (particularly in the computer field) has been great. I am 
pleased that the US Govt Doj program is ending and I feel that the 
states who are still holding out should cease and desist their 
actions too.
    I am a retiree, recently retired from the General Insurance 
business. I have never missed an opportunity to vote and I chair the 
Conservative Party of Ontario County, New York. Thank you for 
requesting my opinion.
    Alan Hagerman, Chairman


From: Paul Graeber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's 
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached 
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy. The law (officially called the Tunney Act) 
requires a public comment period between now and January 28th after 
which the District Court will determine whether the settlement is in 
the ``public interest.''
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    Paul Graeber
    Paul and Sherri


From: DMKCPA6959@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:27pm
Subject: RE; microsoft settlement


From: MyMomKas@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, time for settling this matter once and for 
all. Put a stop to these delays so that MS can get back to business. 
They have provided a service for us consumers that has been 
extremely important in the advancement of computer science. So many 
Americans can now and do, have computers in their homes. I believe 
without MS this would not have happened.
    Why do we want to punish a company that brought USA to the top 
of this industry?
    Kathleen Laitila


From: Erol Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: please complete the settlement
    We've used up enough taxpayer money (my money) to punish the one 
company that has done more for consumers and computing than any 
other. Let's put an end to the ``don't innovate, litigate'' credo of 
the lesser companies. If they'd higher great engineers to make great 
products, and get out of the courts, maybe they could compete.
    As a registered voter, I'm adding my vote to complete the 
settlement and get America moving again towards innovation!


From: Patty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the settlement reached in the Microsoft case is fair. 
Please make it final and let Microsoft and the American public get 
on with life.
    Thank you.
    P. Lea


From: Jimmy.Chan@Dictaphone.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing this reguarding to the Microsoft Settlement Case as 
a consumer, my point of view is the case has been prolong enough. It 
is bad for the economy, derail innovation for new technology. 
Majorily of the public are aware they do have a choice to choose 
from all vendors of software makers and they are more acknowlegeable 
reguarding what they buy from a decade ago. Also, technology has 
been advanced so fast, even the laws can't keep up and I understand 
you want to protect the consumers.
    So, let us decide what's best for the consumers and ends all 
litigation asap when there is a fair settlement presented on the 
table for all parties already. And get the economy moving on all 
cylinders again. Thanks for letting me voice my point of view. Good 

[[Page 24937]]



From: PaulMons@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on, lets get this show on the road and finalized. We have 
wasted far too much time and money for no real purpose. Let's step 
up to the plate and get it finalized. Microsoft is being more than 
fair--enought already. Make it happen.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Paul E. Monson


From: Camerz5@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern, The settlement accepted by Microsoft 
should be accepted by the Court and Microsoft should be afforded 
quiet enjoyment to innovate and pursue its business.
    The entire case against Microsoft is study of abuse of 
government power against the private sector--Microsoft drove our 
high tech economy and dramatically increased productivity in 
America. We owe the success of the 90's to the catalyst 
``Microsoft''. Bill Gates and his team are the new American heroes 
of our capitalist system, Microsoft brought low priced products to 
the service of all. Microsoft succeeded against all competitors 
world wide--they won the Olympic Gold of Business for America and 
the American government tried to punished them due to complaints 
from inefficient high price competitors with friends in Congress.
    It is time to end this tragic mistaken case and move on. In 
addition to settlement the Federal government and especially the 
States should apologize to Microsoft and its shareholders.
    God Bless a Free America
    Carl A. Merz
    Hartford Aviation Group, Inc.


From: Richard Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement --- Richard Lewis --- 
rlewis0627@earthlink.net --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real 
    I believe the Microsoft settlement was good and fair and that it 
should not be overturned by special interests. Litigation is a sorry 
method of resolving problems, especially since consumers have not 
suffered from Microsoft's actions.
    Richard F. Lewis
    22 Tollridge Ct.
    San Mateo, CA 94402


From: John Buttel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First of all I do not own any Microsoft stock at this time and 
am not now nor will I ever be employed by Microsoft. I do use the 
products created by the company and have never had a complaint or 
felt that I my choices were being limited in any way by monopolistic 
practices. Prices for Microsoft products are fair to me the consumer 
and services have been more than satisfactory. I have felt from the 
beginning of the legal action that my government was suing a company 
on behalf of other competing companies that could not do it on their 
own. I am not anything more than a casual computer user that has 
never found a time or place where I had to use a Microsoft product 
when I did not want to. Just because they were able to come up with 
the dominant operating system for the personal computer in the right 
place and the right time they should not be punished continually for 
it. Please let the market place decide what it wants and stop 
wasting my tax dollars on litigation against Microsoft. In the Bible 
God tells us not to sue one another.
    Thank you, my name is John (jbtl@home.com)


From: TPCMD@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:34pm
Subject: settlement
    I think the proposal to have Microsoft donate software to 
schools is excellent. Please lets get this terrible burden to our 
economy over with and settle this case. Sun, oracle and there states 
will never settle so please make them.
    Tim Carey, MD


From: Purdue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept of Justice:
    Please settle this case as soon as possible. I do not think that 
delaying the settlement will solve anything further. Personally, I 
see the nine states that are in a quandary as inhibiting and not 
expediting legal or just settlement of this case by any further 
    Barbara Purdue
    Citizen USA


From: charles bolton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:39pm
Subject: The action currently being pursued against Microsoft 
creates a Business
    The action currently being pursued against Microsoft creates a 
Business climate of uncertainty that prevents them from continuing 
to innovate and develop new technology that will provide business 
opportunities and create additional jobs, investment opportunities 
and other revenue streams. Microsoft has been punished enough by 
this long drawn out court action, delays, missed opportunities and 
legal costs. Implement the settlement as decided by the Courts. 
Continuing to re-open the case on hearsay and speculation is a 
violation of the equal protection of the laws of the US Constitution 
and probably a violation of due process.
    In these un-settled economic and chaotic world climate we need 
stability and a level playing field to allow us technology to stay 
in the lead. Do you think the Chinese and all the other techno 
wantabees are tying the hands of their premier technology companies. 
No! Keep it up and you will erode our global technological edge.
    There are winners and losers in the market place all the time. I 
saw my company that had a good product and technology go down the 
tubes due to the dot.com melt down and we were not a dot.com 
company. So encourage competition and let people innovate and 
computer and stop listening to the cry babies.
    Charles Bolton


From: scott juetten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:31pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case that never ends!
    To Whom it may Concern,
    I strongly support the proposed settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. The settlement more than addresses the 
concerns brought up at the trial without unduly harming a company 
that has perhaps done more for the US Economy than any other. This 
settlement will allow Microsoft to keep innovating, while being 
sensitive to the needs of competitors and computer makers.
    The dissenting states proposed alterations to the settlement are 
punitive in nature, and are primarily designed to help Microsoft 
competitors at the expense of Microsoft and Microsoft shareholders. 
They are designed to prevent Microsoft from innovating, and to make 
Microsoft hand over intellectual property to competitors. Microsoft 
has shown signs it is very determined to comply with the settlement, 
by internally appointing compliance officers. Therefore, I believe 
the states concerns are unfounded.
    It is my opinion that if the settlement is approved, and this 
case is finally closed, that it will help to eliminate uncertainty 
in the tech sector of the equity markets. This can also help to spur 
economic recovery. Therefore, I do not feel it is in the best 
interest of consumers or the country to drag this on further.
    Please accept the settlement of United States vs. Microsoft as 
submitted by the US Justice Department.
    Scott & Rochelle Juetten


From: ThereHugoAgain@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is respectfully submitted that the Microsoft litigation at 
bar represents a politically motivated abuse of the American 
judicial system. The conclusions and findings of the Court appear to 
be an overly simplistic, almost academic, approach that bears little 
relevancy to the real world of average consumers such as myself.
    It is at best absurd that absolutely no consideration appears to 
have been given to

[[Page 24938]]

the fact that the explosion of the internet is almost exclusively 
the result of Microsoft's bundling which effectively gave consumers 
``all'' they needed to permit them to wander through the internet. 
I'd call it one stop shopping-a convenience-not a punishment.
    It is equally absurd that no consideration has been given the 
issue of whether any of the ``competitors'' who were ``excluded'' 
actually offered products that were truly innovative and competitive 
with Microsoft's products.
    Finally, the penultimate absurdity of the litigation is the lack 
of any proof that consumers would have benefited financially or 
otherwise had circumstances been as the Court believed they should 
have been.
    If Microsoft is willing to accept the proposed settlement, it 
should be approved. The Court and the State Attorneys should not do 
any further harm.
    Respectfully yours,
    William J. Breuer
    22 Nassau Blvd
    Garden City, N.Y.


From: Jrq007@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I have been concerned about the Department of Justice lawsuit 
against Microsoft. I began using Microsoft products in 1981 when I 
bought my first IBM microcomputer. Nothing in my lifetime has 
increased my productivity and work enjoyment as much as the 
microcomputer and Microsoft software. Their creativity and 
entrepreneurship helped millions of other people and me. I have 
worked at four universities and most recently as Vice President for 
Finance and Administration at the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville. I recently retired but was thinking back to 1981 when I 
bought six microcomputers and established three residence hall 
computer labs at Central Michigan University. I think these were the 
very first residence hall computer labs in the country. Many 
students benefited from those labs and the Microsoft software we 
used. From that early beginning I certainly could not have predicted 
the full impact of either the software or the microcomputer. I have 
been forever grateful to Bill Gates and all the Microsoft people for 
providing such productivity enhancements. I am happy to hear that 
Attorney General John Ashcroft has ended the Department of Justice's 
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a settlement. I 
wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney General's decision to get it 
over with.
    The complex agreement is full of provisions that will 
permanently change the software industry and I personally do not see 
a one that I would consider positive. Everything about the agreement 
seems to me to be aimed at reducing creative endeavor. The 
government even created an ongoing technical oversight committee to 
review Microsoft software codes, and to test Microsoft compliance to 
the agreement. Nevertheless, I am glad it is over. What disturbs me 
is that some government officials and Microsoft competitors aren't 
satisfied with the decision and want tighter screws on Microsoft. I 
ask, ``How far should the government go on these issues? Free 
enterprise needs a break!'' My hope is that Microsoft will produce 
even better software in the future that will help all of us. I am 
doing some consulting now and my son is a software developer who 
uses all of Microsoft's development software. I don't want to see 
anything standing in the way of improved software.
    Our tax money should be used to deal with the urgent matters of 
the day. In my opinion, the federal government doesn't need to take 
any more action on this issue. Please end the Microsoft lawsuit 


From: Barbara Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to settle this mess, for the good of all. Why prolong 
it any longer. Prolonging the settlement hurts the economy and 
really hurts everyone. Those that don't want to settle are the ones 
that are really greedy. Let's get it over with.


From: Jim Gasparich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As an avid computer user I feel strongly that the settlement 
arrived at between Microsoft and the DOJ was fair and in the best 
interest of consumers like myself. Further litigation is a waste of 
taxpayer money and will not help consumers but rather competitors 
and the political careers of ambitious AG's. Please do the world a 
favor and end this.
    James P Gasparich, M.D.


From: Wendall Mayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ,
    Please, it is time for this issue to be put to rest. The entire 
case revolves around the fact that Microsoft's competitors do not 
have the will or desire to get out and work hard to develop the 
technology to compete with Microsoft. They would rather cry and go 
running to the government. Why not, it is easier and cheaper for 
them. Microsoft pumps millions of dollars into the US economy. They 
have for many years and they can for many more if everyone will just 
leave them alone. In addition, Microsoft develops technology that 
not only makes the US stronger, but also makes it easier for the 
average consumer to do what they want to with their personal 
computer. In addition, Microsoft delivers this technology at a 
tremendous value.
    Thank you!


From: SamuelWines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that enough resources have been expended to date and 
that it is time to move ahead. Microsoft is not perfect and 
certainly should be monitored but is it not time to move to more 
pressing issues?
    Sam Wines


From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I think the Clinton Administration made a terrible mistake in 
using the Dept of Justice in trying to break-up Microsoft. MS is the 
with the recourses and talent to compete with foreign governments in 
the development of new and sophisticated software. The remaining 
states have no case and there has no damage to them, therefore, they 
should give up there in pursuit of MS.
    Thank you for your kind attention to this matter--
    Perry Du Long


From: Lovemycat@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on way too long now. PLEASE settle this ridiculous 
case and lets move on. Microsoft is an incredible company and I 
can't believe I live in a country that penalizes it's citizen's for 
being innovative and successful. Its disgraceful the way our 
government has treated our own company that we should be proud of. I 
used to live in Mexico and down there the people couldn't believe 
what the USA was doing. It was really embarrassing to try and 
explain it.


From: Gcademator@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A reasonable and fair settlement has been reached. Lets stop 
seeking to damage the future of one of the few remaining American 
companies that is truly a leader in global business and quickly 
ratify the settlement.
    K. Cadematori 1/2/02


From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If 
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any 
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how 
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against 
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the 
    Jim Renfrow
    2400 Columbine Lane
    Montrose, CO 81401-5646

[[Page 24939]]

    PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my 
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.


From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: hello
    i want to say, that i dont like the settlement that the DOJ has 
reached with microsoft, this is not helping the consumers, and of 
course, not helping the economy at all, microsoft allways had the 
winner track on all these computer business, i think that we are 
loosing the economy on the computer market with this settlement, the 
9 of the 18 states started this because microsoft's MONOPOLIC 
tactics, they started this because the POWER AND THE MONEY that 
microsoft have win in this computer market is not ALLOWING other 
little companys to start or to reach a good market, because 
MICRO$OFT can buy the competitor... or add a ``new free feature'' to 
the next os, and the competitor will be down and dead, and microsoft 
will not spend more money again, this is not helping the AMERICAN 
ECONOMY, this is helping MICRO$OFT ECONOMY, i was wondering why? i 
can travel to USA proof that im good for the USA economy and the 
American Gov. will loan me money to start, so i can grow as a 
business in the USA, a country that i love, and i will like to live 
on, but what happens here? with this settlement the only thing that 
you, DOJ, 9 states of the 18 states are doing is destroying the 
chance of people like me or any other little company that wants to 
start something in the computer market, why should i do it? if i 
will loose against microsoft in one way or another? this settlement 
is not protecting the AMERICAN ECONOMY and that is the big 
    because in the way this is handle, 5 years of restricted stuff 
for microsoft? what is that? microsoft agreed in other settlement to 
pay 10 billons, that shows to you how much they care of that 5 
years, in the 6th year they can recover all the money they loose, 
please, dont give them the chance to destroy the american economy, 
this cant be tolerated!!!! the american economy is not moved by 
microsoft, is moved by hundres or 1000! of people that wants to 
start something or a business in that great country! but in the way 
this is going, microsoft will be able to do whatever they want, that 
is bad!! very bad!
    microsoft can loose 10 billons of dollars but they know that 
they can recover it once again when the 6th year is reached! or by 
going back to their tactics! the split of the company was the best 
to do!!! but if you cant make them do that then go for the proposed 
by the 9 REBEL STATES the open of the code of IE and other things 
they had in mind please! do it for ALL THE ECONOMY, not just 
MICRO$OFT ECONOMY this move, and the tactics that microsoft allways 
used is destroying the little and medium companys arround, and in 
some years, you will have nothing, and who can we blame about that?


From: Bob Windom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I am a 
county commissioner as well.
    We fully beli My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I 
am a county commissioner as well. We fully believe that the 
Microsoft settlement is just and fair. It serves us well as 
consumers both in private life, the small business sector, and local 
government. We, therefore, encourage you to move forward with the 
    Robert and Rita Windom
    303 Voves Ave.
    Libby, MT 59923


From: Jbsailboat@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice, I am in favor of the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. It is time to get this settled so the economy 
can move forward and recover. Thank you.
    James H. Baker


From: RMccull955@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
    In the interest of the public, I would like an agreement on the 
current settlement. A few sour grapes would like to prolong this for 
there own interest, in the long run this is going to cost us all 
money and won't accomplish anything. Not all Microsoft products are 
perfect, but they are generally better than whatever else is around!
    Robb McCullough


From: Leslie Veres
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement and see no reason to 
prolong this case one minute longer than necessary. Please complete 
the settlement process and apply the Department of Justice resources 
to more important needs.
    Thank you very much.
    Leslie L. Veres


From: Ann Whalen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle this case. I am a taxpayer and have paid 
for this case to go on and on. As a consumer, I have enjoyed an 
operating system that is innovative, creative and an American 
product. Let's spend time, money and energy on ``fighting'' cases 
that negatively affect the American public.
    Thanks, Ann Whalen


From: LRobe58516@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madams:
    I sincerely hope that the Microsoft Settlement, otherwise known 
as the Tunney Act, would be implemented as soon as possible. Any 
other course would constitute yet another blow to our struggling 
    C. Lawrence Roberts, M.D.
    23720 S.E. 18th St.
    Sammamish, Washington 98075-8109


From: David Hemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is in the best interests of the country and 
consumers. I fully support the settlement and hope that you will 
enforce its terms.
    David Hemler


From: THAKORTaru@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Please settle the case as soon as possible w/o hurting economy 
and citizen of this country.


From: kearypk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have been asked to comment on the settlement. I think that ANY 
settlement hurts both the consumer and our country's economy and 
ability to compete worldwide. However, I agree that this settlement 
is better that any more litigation and therefore agree with it
    Keary Kunz
    210 Jennings
    Wenatchee, WA 98801


From: Scott Cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this whole effort is a shame. Large scale damage has 
been done to our economy by the USDOJ in the name of anti-trust. The 
consumer has not been harmed by Microsoft, the consumer enjoys more 
value for its money than any other time in history. This action only 
benefits AOL-Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and Oracle to name a few.
    Please end this tragedy.
    Thank you,
    Scott Cuddihy


From: Timmessmer@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    TO whom it may concern:
    As a consumer, I wish to voice my strong opinion that you settle 
this case with Microsoft as it is now. The Tunney act is fair and 
needs to be implemented without any further delay. To delay is to 
prolong the

[[Page 24940]]

stifling effect on development. Do what is right and settle now.
    Timothy Messmer
    Anacortes, WA


From: marvin thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:00am
Subject: microsoft settlement
To: us doj
    To whom it may concern: Please settle the Microsoft case without 
further litigation. I believe this to be in the interest of the 
    marvin c. thurmond
    44 camden way
    dallas,ga. 30157


From: AHWELLNESS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wrote a letter to Microsoft some time ago supporting them in 
the legal actions. They provided me with this address to continue to 
show my support...I agree that the settlement seems to be in the 
consumer's best interests, and I would like the litagatin to cease.
    Anne Hazelton MD


From: Ronald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I Agree with California an the other eight states, that 
Microsoft is the one stalling. I agree with California and the other 
eight states. Microsoft should split into two or three corporations. 
They are a bullies.
    Ron Bush
    End User
    Ronald J. Bush


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:04am
Subject: Dept. of Justice Put a sock in it! Settle this NOW!


From: Jasha Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is high time to let Microsoft be and let their competitors 
compete in the marketplace instead of trying to have the courts do 
it for them.
    Jasha Levi


From: David P. Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05am
Subject: comments on DOJ v. Microsoft
    I am a professional computer software developer, and I've been 
working with and around computers for as long as Bill Gates (we're a 
year apart in age). While I have not read the proposed settlement in 
detail, I have read many accounts in the technical press that seem 
to be in fair agreement, and I thought I'd register my comments. In 
a nutshell, I think the proposed settlement is off-point and will 
have virtually no impact in the market place or to any useful extent 
with either consumers or end users. It's an attempt to compensate 
for market forces that were in effect several years ago and that 
might not be relevant today.
    For what it's worth, here's my opinion.
    I agree that Microsoft has created a monopoly. The issue before 
the courts was focused on products and product bundling; however, 
this is not the culprit. The monopoly that Microsoft has so 
effectively created really lies in a distribution channel that 
reaches over 90% of all computer users in the North American 
hemisphere, and probably a majority of ALL users worldwide. The 
problem with that sort of monopoly is that the monopoly holder has 
the absolute right to say what goes into that channel. It's not that 
the products Microsoft chooses to bundle are good, bad, or 
indifferent. The problem is that the consumer is LOCKED OUT from 
    Consider this: what if. . . 90% of telephone service was 
provided by Qwest? 90% of all grocery stores food distributors were 
owned by Safeway? 90% of all gasoline pipelines were owned by Mobil 
Oil? . . . And, the owners were also the produces of 100% of the 
products that were stocked and sold to their customers--meaning that 
all the services accessible by telephone (eg., long distance, voice 
mail, internet access, etc) were ALSO owned by Qwest; that 100% of 
the products found in a Safeway store were exclusively their in-
house private label brands; that all the gasoline and oil available 
through Mobil gas stations was produced and owned by Mobil Oil. It's 
kind of scary to think about, isn't it? You'd go to the grocery 
store looking for Quaker Brand Oatmeal, and you have to settle with 
some gloppy in-house brand because . . . the price of the Quaker 
Oats product would be twice the cost of the in-house brand because 
the ``house'' would take a few tens of million dollars for the 
privledge of ``bundling'' it with their other products. (Look what 
they wanted to charge AOL just to advertise their internet service 
in Windows XP!) What other company, distributor, news source, 
publisher, government, or ANYBODY exists ANYWHERE that has that kind 
of market penetration AND CONTROL? I cannot think of a single one, 
other than possibly the US Post Office!
    What is the impact on me as a software developer? Well, it's 
rather difficult for me to gain access to this distribution channel. 
In fact, it's practically impossible. AOL couldn't get into the XP 
distribution without practically selling their soul; what chance 
does a smaller company have? Z-E-R-O. That's the primary impact of 
this monopoly--when somebody buys a Compaq or Dell computer, the 
only products they get exposure to are from Microsoft (and a few 
other Fortune 50 companies that can afford the advertising costs). 
And that's mainly because of contracts between Microsoft and the OEM 
manufacturers. Even if those contract terms are relaxed a bit, 
there's no way that smaller vendors are going to get to bundle their 
multimedia players and text editors with those systems!
    The first automobiles were available in ``any color you want, as 
long as it's black''. That's ok when you're talking about a product 
market place with a few thousand or tens of thousands of customers. 
But today tens of millions of computers are sold each year. 
Nonetheless, as in Ford's time, consumers can get them outfitted 
with ``any operating system you like, as long as it's from 
Microsoft''. That's NOT a choice!
    One measure of the settlement should be this: how do consumers 
choices change as a result? Frankly, I fail to see how this 
situation will possibly change given the proposed remedies. Assuming 
the proposed settlement goes through, in a year or three, will the 
average consumer have any more choices to him as to what software 
gets bundled and/or installed on his computer? I really don't see 
    AT&T was broken into several smaller pieces in order to separate 
the local phone access from the long-distance networks. Now the so-
called Baby Bells want to get back into long distance markets, and 
AT&T wants to get back into local access markets. What solution has 
been put into place? Local carriers can get into long distance when 
they've opened their local markets to some percentage of competing 
carriers, and AT&T can get into local markets when it can 
demonstrate that its opened it's markets to some percentage of 
competing carriers. That makes sense. The practical impact of that 
hasn't been very effective in the market place, but at least it's a 
    As part of the settlement agreement, Microsoft should be 
required to include installation-time access to third-party products 
with every release of their software. The qualifications should be 
that anybody can submit anything as long as it meets certain clearly 
defined and easily measured criteria. That means that if AOL thinks 
that users might want to get access to AOL at the time they install 
Windows XP, the only option Microsoft has is to say ``send us a link 
to your web site''.
    One thing I believe is that Microsoft will claim that virtually 
ANYTHING is an ``integral part'' of the operating system if it suits 
their fancy. Rather than argue about it, I'd say ``the proof is in 
the pudding''. If Microsoft is including something in the release of 
one of their products, then they should allow third parties to 
submit similar products as well. In other words, if they want to 
claim that an Internet Browser is part of the OS, then they cannot 
say that other Browsers should not be include. Conversely, if 
somebody wants to bundle a word processor and Microsoft says that's 
not part of the OS, then they can refuse to include it. However, if 
someone wants to bundle something roughly equivalent to Notepad or 
Wordpad, which are acknowledged parts of the standard Windows 
operating environment, then Microsoft could not deny them trying to 
say that they compete with Word instead.
    In order to facilitate this, I'd suggest the establishment of a 
web site that is used to

[[Page 24941]]

promote third-party products that compete with things that Microsoft 
bundles directly in their products, and require Microsoft to modify 
their installer so that it connects to this web site at installation 
time and allows users to select among different tools available on 
the web site at that time. Some folks might not want to load the 
Windows Media Player, and might choose to install the WinAmp Media 
Player instead. Why not? Or, they could choose to load Netscape 
rather than Internet Explorer as their browser. If Microsoft wants 
to play games with the API so competitors' products don't work well, 
then play the same game as the phone companies--they can update 
their browser as soon as at least one other browser has been tested 
to be ``compatible'' with the operating system. Put the onus on 
Microsoft to provide CLEAR CRITERIA to facilitate successful 
compatibility testing.
    I'd also like to see something in the remedy that addresses the 
abysmal level of support that's currently available for Microsoft's 
products, primarily their 0EM products. Microsoft says that part of 
the reason they discount the licenses sold to OEMs is because their 
contracts require the OEMs to provide support. However, most don't 
provide any useful level of support, typically pushing it off on 
their retailers. Very few retailers ever hire the expertise needed 
to support Microsoft's products well. This is relevant to the 
monopolistic practices issue because it gives Microsoft a way to 
dis-own support needs for a very large percentage of its customers. 
If Microsoft was required to provide even a minimal level of support 
for their products, they would have to raise their OEM prices enough 
that the OEMs would in fact be in a position to make a viable choice 
among different bundling options. Today the OEMs are simply 
prostitutes for Microsoft products that they bundle with their 
hardware simply because nobody else can afford to offer them better 
deals. OEMs cannot afford to support the software that they bundle 
with their computers, and there's a tacit agreement that retailers 
and ``certified technicians'' will take up the slack. The truth is, 
they don't. But Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt and is 
allowed to continue underpricing their products to OEMs using this 
fraudulant strategy. I think that requiring Microsoft to publish a 
single, uniform, OEM Price List that only offers volume purchase 
discounts and that imposes certain specific support requirements 
would go a long way towards solving this problem. (For example, an 
OEM can get an additional discount by providing the 800# for their 
phone support help desk. No support desk, no discount. Conversely, 
Microsoft would be required to provide the support for those OEMs, 
hence justifying the higher OEM price.)
    Finally, I like the option that several of the States have 
proposed that forces Microsoft to publish the source code for the 
core Windows operating system and utilities and require them to 
license it more openly. This would allow third-parties and even OEMs 
to use it to compose different configurations, much the way that 
Linux distributions are really different compositions of mostly the 
same code bases. It would eliminate most of the issues that have 
been keeping the OEMs hamstrung in their abilities to modify the 
boot-up processes of their machines, or shipping alternative 
browsers. It would also have a beneficial side-effect in that the 
OEMs would REALLY be required to support their products!
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    David Schwartz
    P.O. Box 34338
    Phoenix, AZ 85067


From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: what I think
    waste of taxpayers money over nothing!!!!! I stand with 
Microsoft on this matter!!!!!!!
    Rich Tackett
    19811 Portal Plaza
    Cupertino, Calif. 95014
    408 253-7810


From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been around the computer industry for 40 years and the 
one thing that stands out in the early days of the computer is that 
no companies were compatible with software or hardware. Now that one 
company got it all together and you can buy any hardware or software 
and be assured that it will run, the Government wants to shut this 
company down and change the whole industry and set it back to 1970. 
Microsoft has done it right and the only the disgruntled companies 
that can not compete want the Government to penalize Microsoft for 
being successful.
    There are a lot of small business that rely on Microsoft and 
Windows to be the same always. If you do not know how important this 
is then you must be talking to lawyers and not Computer Developers 
and Users that were there when using a Computer was not this easy.
    Carl Odiam
    760 343 3759


From: helen bloomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I am in favor of the comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and 
vote that the case be settled immediately, without further 
    Helen Bloomquist


From: Kurt A. Buechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I am in support of the settlement of the DOJ 
lawsuit vs. Microsoft now on the table. In my opinion, the 
settlement is fair and should be enacted ASAP to assist the nation's 
economic recovery. I own no shares of Microsoft stock and share this 
opinion as a user of products and services of Apple, America Online, 
and Microsoft corporations. I am neither an employee nor beneficiary 
of Microsoft Corp.
    Kurt A. Buechler
    127 Claiborne Cove
    Ridgeland, MS 39157
    (601) 853-3638
    Kurt A. Buechler
    Ridgeland, Mississippi


From: LBGARRISON@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the settlement stand as is and let's get this fiasco over 
with. I thought this country was about entrepreneurship and better 
mousetraps, etc, but it seems to be moving closer to mediocrity 
every day, the result of penalizing anyone who can do something 
better than others. End it.


From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: microsoft is a great company and has done nothing 
    microsoft is a great company and has done nothing wrong!!!!!!!!
    Rich Tackett
    19811 Portal Plaza
    Cupertino, Calif. 95014 408 253-7810


From: Rev. Bill Mounce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    I am an often frustrated but dedicated Windows' user. I have 
been since Windows 2.1. At times I hate it. But I DO NOT believe 
Microsoft should be prosecuted for anything. They have been 
successful because, while they are not perfect, NO ONE has anything 
better. I feel it is their competitors whining because they are 
incapable of building anything better that has caused this entire 
mess at the taxpayer's cost. It is utterly ridiculous. If the other 
programs were better. . . I would definitely use them. But alas they 
are not and yet they want Microsoft broken up to cripple the 
company. The impact on the PC world and business' everywhere would 
be catastrophic. Let's end this nonsense now and let Microsoft do 
what they do best. . . build programs for the struggling PC 
industry. And if anyone else can build a better ``mouse-trap'', we, 
the consumers will judge with out money. Thank you.
    Bill & Shandy Mounce
    Leesville, LA 71446


From: Andy West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I

[[Page 24942]]

have read that certain clauses in section III of the purposed 
settlement give Microsoft rights unusual for a guilty party. Section 
III (D), in which Microsoft must disclose information needed for the 
software of other companies to interoperate with Windows, specifies 
in its footnotes that only commercial businesses alone receive these 
disclosures. This in effect bars universities, research laboratories 
and agencies of the Federal government itself from such information.
    Section III (J)(2) gives the right to determine what constitutes 
a business--for the purpose of licensing APIs, documentation, or 
protocols--not to the Department of Justice but to Microsoft. This 
gives Microsoft leave to shut out not just non-commercial entities 
such as open-source projects, but even federal agencies in the 
course of their own software projects.
    These are the only two clauses I have read about, but these two 
alone give Microsoft too much power to determine how the keystone of 
its monopoly may be used. I would like to ask that the settlement be 
renegotiated on at least these two clauses, if not for the sake of 
the open-source movement, then for the sake of the agencies and 
projects of the Federal government itself.
    Mark Andrew West
    202 East Washington Street
    Fairmount, Indiana 46928
    Tel: 765-747-2919 (work)
    Email: dysme@dysmey.org


From: padam2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please use taxdollars to do something usefull.Stop going after 
microsoft and use your intelect to stimulate the economy rather than 
forever piling up the fees paid to selfserving legal entrepeneurs.I 
am retired and will not visit any of the states that continue to 
oppose a microsoft settlement.


From: SCHWEENER@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage you to get this settled. The economy won't start a 
full recovery until this is settled. Get it off the books!
    Susan M. Swenson


From: CSand385@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10am
Subject: settlement
    it is time that the issue surrounding Microsoft be completed--if 
the Dept Of Justice has concluded thier tsettlement than the 
remaining states shoud follow suigt and stop wasting the taxpayers 
money--the iswsues of monoply may have some vaility to it--but the 
benenfit far outweighs the punishment.
    Carl Sanders
    200 Elm Street
    San Mateo. Ca. 94401


From: Khozem Poonawala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Microsoft, or any company for that matter, should have the 
freedom to innovate. The Microsoft case should be settled, now, once 
and for all. It is good for America and the american economy.
    Khozem Poonawala


From: George Aubrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: about time
    This settlement should go forward and not delay causing more 
problems for the consumer. This lawsuit has caused enough problems 
by not allowing Microsoft freely develop their software. When 
Microsoft begins to gouge the consumer with high prices of their 
software then lets get them, in the meantime let the consumer call 
the shots.


From: TWOROME@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I believe that Microsoft deserves fair and unbiased treatment. I 
am a supporter of Windows and of Microsoft integrating features. 
When the computer companies started, I could not afford the great 
features of the Apple and had to stick with a Vic 20. While dating 
myself a bit, I found Microsoft to be the only company willing to 
bring computing down to a level I could afford and my family could 
    Please stop the nonsense. There are bigger fish such as Credit 
Card Companies that need to be stopped and Oil and Car companies 
that should be providing better alternatives and more fuel efficient 
cars. If you have any questions, please feel free to email back.
    Thank you,


From: BUCELATO@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can accept the ruling of the court BUT I feel that in an open 
society we can only advance if we provide an environment that 
supports innovative business strategies. Microsoft started from the 
bottom and made many investors wealthy, companies successful and our 
nation a leader in the software development. We need to ask the WHY 
should we handicap the leadership of current and future companies 
like Microsoft and allow them to ride on the coat tails by taking 
legal action.
    I, as an INFORMED consumer, knew what I had bought and what the 
consequences of my decision . . . I assume the responsibility and 
accountability of my decisions . . . AND others need to do the same. 
Microsoft would not have grown if through individual research their 
products were rejected as occurred in many areas of technology.
    John Bucelato
    301 Willards Way
    Yorktown, VA 23693


From: David Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13am
Subject: no subject>
    Dear Sirs: I am anxious to see the case against Microsoft 
settled in a manner that is fair to all parties, and does not 
infringe upon Microsoft's freedom to innovate, to make creative use 
of a free market to aggressively market its widely used and superior 
products to the world. I feel that a quick and fair settlement to 
this case is in the best interest of the consumers and the economy 
of our country. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express 
my opinion.
    David Watkins


From: Alex Melli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:15am
Subject: My Opinion
    To who it may concern:
    Regarding the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft Corp., and the 
pending penalty phase, I would like to register my opinion. I do not 
agree with the penalties being assessed. The proposed penalties I've 
heard, involving Microsoft contributing loads of computers and 
software to schools is not appropriate for several reasons:
--It is creating future users (i.e. customers) for Microsoft. It's 
like letting a drug company give a vitamin to schoolchildren, making 
them dependent on it and creating a future customer.
--This is actually a bonus for Microsoft, giving them more inroads 
to the education market!
--The penalty is a minor inconvenience at worst. For that 
corporation, it is the equivilent of a parking ticket.
--The were found GUILTY of a violation, so the price to pay should 
be a proactive move to repair their damage AND make sure it does not 
happer further.
--It is difficult to asses the value of any donated computers of 
software. Software should be assessed by physical cost of the 
product. So donating a single program does not count as $300, but 
the actual cost to the company, probably around $20.
    If Microsoft is to be properly penalized, one factor *should* be 
an educational donation. The order of money should be in the 
hundreds of millions (this is supposed to be a penalty, after all), 
and it should be a flat out cash payment. It should be left to the 
recipient of the money what to do with it, not the party being 
``penalized.'' And why should the guilty part have any say in what 
their penalty is in the first place? Iif I think that speeding 
ticket is too much, do I have any choice? NO. The law dictates my 
punishment, and I'm bound to that. Just because Microsoft is the 
biggest player in the game, they are still a player, not the 
    BOTTOM LINE: Microsoft needs to be PENALIZED for being found 

[[Page 24943]]

on a final note, the arguement that breaking up Microsoft would have 
too big of an impact on the entire computer industry (and the 
economy) should be proof in itself that the company is a monopoly. . 
    Alex Melli
    Laguna Beach, California


From: Gooddadone@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:16am
Subject: (no subject)
    Microsoft is the Ford Motor Company of the computer business. It 
is a shale to penalize a company for being the forward looking and 
the brains of the industry. Shame on the justice department, our 
government penalizing a company for doing what is correct, for 
inventing their components for their use in order to better serve 
the public.
    Ed Logue gooddadone@juno.com


From: A. Bairamian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. I support DOJ decision to settle the 
Microsoft lawsuit.
    This ill-advised lawsuit--instigated by jealous competitors and 
presided over by a biased judge--has caused great harm to Microsoft 
and the entire tech sector.
    It is time to end this useless lawsuit, so Microsoft can go back 
to producing and innovating.
    A. Bairamian
    Glendale, CA.


From: David Demland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    Dear Mrs. Hesse,
    Here are my comments about the Microsoft settlement.
    David Demland
    3506 E. Glenrosa
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    (602) 955-3248
    Renata Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mrs. Hesse,
    I would like to introduce myself. My name is David Demland. I 
have been in software development for almost 15 years. I have work 
in all aspects of software development during my career. For the 
past three years I have been a Quality Assurance (QA) manager. I 
have spent most of my career centered on not only the software that 
is developed, but the way software is developed. I have worked hard 
to get developers to understand that we have to have a goal of ``no 
defects'', weather or not we can produce ``no defects''. I Have done 
everything from writing code to leading projects and development 
teams. I say all of this so that it may be clear that I am an expert 
in the area of software and software development. I wish that all 
the following comments are taken in that light. The following 
comments reflect my feelings about the U.S. Government and Microsoft 
    I wish to thank the U.S. Government and the Nine States that 
have settled this long awaited case for all their due diligence and 
hard work to finally settle this landmark case. All of us in this 
industry are in your debt for this work. If for no other reason than 
that we now know that if a hi-tech company can obtain a monopoly 
they may break the law all they want to remove competition and 
nothing will happen. Not long ago I had the hope that free 
competition and a fair business ethic might return to our industry 
leader, I now know that will never happen. In July of 1998 there was 
a great article in the Arizona Republic about John D. Rockefeller 
and Bill Gates. This article was about a new book called ``Titan'' 
by Ron Chernow. This book told about Rockefeller and the author of 
the article showed how much alike Bill Gates was in respect to 
business. The only difference is that Rockefeller was not as 
successful as Gates in getting the government to accept that a 
monopoly should be allow to do what it wants with no penalties. Did 
the author of this article know something at that time that the rest 
of us missed?
    As I have read and followed just about everything that came out 
from the trial all the way down to this proposed settlement one 
thing has come to mind over and over again--everything being talked 
about seems to focus on how Microsoft has conducted it's business in 
the past and how to keep them from doing these practices again in 
the future. Yet everything points to how fast this industry changes. 
This leads to a simple question: How will restricting the way 
Microsoft conducted itself in the 90's apply to today's conduct when 
the business practices have already changed in the industry as a 
whole and Microsoft is doing the same thing but in different ways? 
As a guide I will use the Competitive Impact Statement that 
describes the way this proposal will work. On page 4 there are two 
bulleted points that came to my attention right a way, for reference 
they are the third and fourth bullet points. Both of these points 
are to ensure that third parties can work with Microsoft products. 
At this point there are no time lines mention, but the point is 
clear that this will be done so that third parties have time to get 
their products to work with Microsoft products. These missing time 
lines will need to be kept in mind, there will be times I will 
return to these points again.
    I find it interesting that on page 14 it talks about the court 
findings that: Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its 
``Office for Macintosh'' software, which, as Microsoft recognized, 
was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make 
Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom 
to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to 
protect the applications barrier to entry. Yet the current 
provisions really do not address this behavior. Of course this would 
mean that Microsoft would have to have a monopoly on office suites 
was well. Since this has not been an issue in the court it needs to 
be looked at to understand the company culture. In the industry 
today, for the most part, it has been conceded that MS Office is a 
monopoly in the office suite arena 1. Will Microsoft use this tactic 
again? This will be certain.
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf A look at what 
has become known as the halloween documents will give a very detail 
insight about this issue 2. In the first halloween document 
Microsoft implies that a way to beat Unix in general would be ``Fold 
extended functionality into protocols / services and create new 
protocols''. This look shows that in the same matter that Microsoft 
blackmailed Apple they would blackmail the whole industry if they 
could. Many thought that Microsoft would never extend a recognize 
standard after the halloween documents were published, yet in 
Windows 2000, W2K, Microsoft did just that. A well known and 
accepted security standard was added to by Microsoft. This standard 
is called Kerberos. Once again the use of the Microsoft OS can be 
used by Microsoft to change the industry just by doing. Where does 
this behavior help the industry and the consumer except just to push 
Microsoft's dominance farther? In Wired magazine there was a comment 
about the change that Microsoft was going through at that time when 
Steve Ballmer was moved into Bill Gates position of presidency. 
James Wallace said: 2. These are internal Microsoft documents that 
was published on the internet. After these papers were published, 
Microsoft not only admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as 
far as to say this is the way they do normal business. These can be 
found at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://
www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/
halloween3.html, Ballmer's promotion ``represents a fundamental 
shift away from workgroup computing into not only enterprise 
computing but internet computing, which requires a different 
sensitivity'' 3. 3. Why Bill Gates Quit His Job, by James Wallace, 
Wired December 1998 Could it be that James Wallace saw what Consumer 
Federation of America just reported in September 2001 1? Once again 
I ask: How can Microsoft be held accountable in a 2001 software 
industry using a 1990's industry model when the industry has changed 
so much? Are we saying that when an industry changes fast enough a 
business that breaks the law should be allowed to because they can 
change the industry before any sanctions are handed out to them?
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf At the top of 
page 18 there is a discussion about what Microsoft Middleware is. 
The way this has been defined it allows Microsoft to tell the 
industry what the middleware is, not what the market believes. To 
understand how this effects the industry as a whole I will relate a 
story of a problem I ran into that cost the business I worked for 
eight months of work and left many of our customers in a bind. 
Microsoft create the Microsoft Data Access

[[Page 24944]]

Component, MDAC, to allow Windows applications to use different ODBC 
drivers to access databases. When Office 2000 was released, 
Microsoft release a new version of MDAC. This version of MDAC was 
not compatible with previous version. There were many problems with 
Microsoft including a new service pack release that had the same 
problems. To make a long story short it took eight months to get the 
two fixes to allow both of our products to work with this new MDAC. 
This is a very high price for a small business. Does this sound like 
a business that is trying to work with well their customers? What 
does this story mean to this settlement? Well if Microsoft can say 
what is middleware by themselves, what are companies like the one I 
work for to do? Are we always going to be expected to keep rewriting 
our products to match what Microsoft tells us to do just because 
they have a monopoly on the OS and they do not have to care about us 
as small businesses?
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
    2. These are internal Microsoft documents that was published on 
the internet. After these papers were published, Microsoft not only 
admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as far as to say this is 
the way they do normal business. These can be found at: http://
www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/
halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html,Wait 
a minute, this settlement dictates that this will not happen because 
middleware API's have to be disclosed. Take a moment at look closely 
at this case. Where in this story did anything deal with an API? In 
fact just after this Office release became a big enough deal to 
developers, Microsoft announced that MDAC would become part of OS 2. 
All these problems were backward compatibility issues and this is 
just one of the new tools Microsoft can use to control the industry 
in the new environment that has changed since the 1990's and this 
settlement does not even address these types of issues. Once again I 
ask, are hi-tech business allow to break any laws they wish and 
because the industry changes so fast there is nothing that can be 
done about it?
    2. This was at Microsoft developer days here in Phoenix that 
later the next year. This problem of Microsoft doing what ever they 
want to control the industry appears on page 19 as well. In the last 
paragraph a Microsoft Middleware Product mentions the Microsoft's 
Java Virtual Machine. Did you know that this no longer exists? 
Microsoft, after losing to Sun on the Java Virtual Machine, JVM, 
issues has now created a new language and drop support for JVM. How 
is this going to effect the industry? Once again because Microsoft 
is using it's monopoly power to force business to rewrite all their 
products. It is now clear how Steve Ballmer has lead Microsoft into 
the internet age the same way as Bill Gates lead Microsoft into the 
1990's. Their goal is to keep Microsoft the largest player no matter 
how it effects the consumer or other businesses. What do you think 
John D. Rockefeller would say today after seeing his business 
penalized and Microsoft left to doing it over and over again? What 
is the consumer to think? In all this there is another accomplice to 
the dirty deeds of Microsoft. This is the government. That's right. 
On page 20, the last three lines, the government has told the 
country do not start a business in an area that will compete with 
Microsoft Middleware it can not be allowed. Where do I get this 
from? It is simple, what was the last start-up company able to sell 
at least a million copies of their product from the start? I have 
yet to find one. So what this means is if there is a start-up in one 
of these areas do not worry Microsoft does not have to tell you 
anything. So just think, after spending a lot of money you will go 
out of business anyway. What a way to go. The government has said as 
long as the current competition can stay alive there will be 
competition, but once that competition is gone, O well. Once again 
thank you for looking out for the consumer. As it is stated on page 
21 this ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative 
obligations... being triggered by minor, or even, nonexistent, 
products that have not established a competitive potential in the 
market''. This is a great thought, if there is no competition, how 
can you be a monopoly? How is no new competition good for the 
consumer? I find the commits on page 24 at the bottom of the page 
rather odd:
    Thus, the key to the proper remedy in this case is to end 
Microsoft's restrictions on potentially threatening middleware, 
prevent it from hampering similar nascent threats in the future and 
restore the competitive conditions created by similar middleware 
threats. How is this going to be achieved if over a million copies 
are required on page 21? This seems to be a contradiction to me. Am 
I missing something? As if this has not been technical enough let's 
talk about how the dual boot is to be done on page 26. At the 
current time W2K was released with a small problem, it does not look 
at the BOIS for the hard disk information at boot up time. This 
basically renders tools like System Commander useless. So how is a 
consumer, or GEM, going to be able to use these tools if Microsoft 
bypasses common practices. Where is this address to ensure that 
there is no subversion to activating other partitions and making 
these tools and their manufactures useless. One argument is that 
this is an API that has to be disclosed, but if it takes months for 
this information to become available there is no way to have fixes 
in place for these companies that create these tools. This will be 
looked at close a little later.
    On page 27 is one of the best examples of how the government 
failed to help support the free market competition. Here the 
industry has been told that if you are not one of the 20 largest 
OEMs, that Microsoft licenses to, you can be locked out of 
information. This is great, once again any small company has been 
told that they should not enter into this industry. Does this mean 
that the government supports only having large business? If not how 
will a small business be able to compete under this section? Even on 
page 20 and 28 the message seems to be clear the top 20 OEMs are the 
only ones that count.
    On page 32 there are two issues. At the bottom of the page it 
talks about dual boot systems being allowed. As I have already 
talked about, how it this going to be handled if Microsoft continues 
to bypass standard practices on boot up? If tools like System 
Commander can be rendered useless what is going to keep Microsoft 
from allowing this same issues on a dual boot system to discourage 
OEMs from shipping these systems. Would it not have made more since 
to ensure that Microsoft uses the industry standards to ensure they 
do not subvert this issue? I think a very important issue has been 
missed in this area.
    The best part of this page is at the end of the first paragraph. 
I would like to thank you for penalizing all of us in the industry 
for Microsoft abusing their monopoly power. I find it outrageous 
that is was agreed that OEMs must use software substitutions that 
act like the Microsoft software that it is being substituted for. Is 
it assumed that these OEMs write their own software? If so that is 
wrong. There are many companies, like the small ones I have worked 
for, that do this software and you have just told them if it cost 
tens of thousands of dollars to rewrite their software do it if they 
want an OEM use your software in place of Microsoft. What did these 
businesses do wrong to deserve this penalty?
    On page 43 it talks about Microsoft putting information on their 
MSDN for APIs and other important information that has to be shared. 
I found this amusing because it does not say how this information 
should be handled on MSDN. In fact this has allowed Microsoft a 
great way to make more money off of developers. They can put this 
information on MSDN in a hidden place and when developers call to 
find it they can be charged to find out where it is. What a penalty 
for breaking the law.
    Now we come to the timeline items. On page 35 the proposal for 
the releasing of the XP APIs is a great try, but it still gives 
Microsoft about a year lead time to get a head of all the other 
developers. I have created, and maintained, this type of 
documentation at two different businesses in my career and in every 
case I have had this type of documentation before we got to far into 
the early stages of testing. Microsoft should already have this as 
well. It should not take more than two or three months, at most, to 
polish these API documents to make them public. I find it hard to 
accept that the definition of this timeline, for documentation, is 
different for the middleware products. I have a real problem with 
timeline of the last major beta before release before the first 
release candidate for the middleware products. In most cases this 
will be only a couple of months before the final release. This will 
make it hard for other developers to make changes to work in a 
timely matter. Especially when there are multimillion lines of code 
in many products today. Please see above about the MDAC story. The 
standard that the industry tends to follow for a beta test is best 
put: The product has completed all of the major features content 
that has been planned for the final release... During the beta 
release, the product

[[Page 24945]]

will be tested for it functionality, specifically with regard to 
    1. Michael E. Bays--Software Release Methodology 1999 Prentice-
Hall This definition makes it clear that the industry believes that 
at the time of the beta test all functionality is complete, this 
means that the APIs are complete as well, otherwise it would be an 
alpha test and the product is still changing. Does this timeline not 
allow Microsoft to hold back information for middleware APIs until 
it is hard for competitors to be ready at the same time as 
Microsoft? How does this keep Microsoft from locking out software 
like Netscape? Please see page 12. Pages 36--38 deals with protocols 
but it misses the fundamental problem with Microsoft and how they 
can hurt the industry and the consumer. How can protocols be talked 
about without including industry standards? Microsoft has shown that 
it will do what ever it takes to keep their monopoly. This has been 
well proven in the trial court level and upheld in the appellate 
court level. Yet this fact seems to have been over looked when it 
comes to the use of industry standard protocols by Microsoft. 
Microsoft has had proposals internally placed on the table to extend 
common protocols to help lock out competitors 1.
    1. Halloween documents http://www.opensource.org/
halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and 
http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html, This issue was thrust 
into the fore front when W2K was released with Kerberos. Microsoft 
had extended this common industry standard to try to lock out other 
Unix computers. Microsoft's extension to this industry standard is 
also a major part of the European case against Microsoft. It also 
shows how much power Microsoft has to destroy computer connectivity. 
Why is it that nothing has been said about Microsoft doing as so 
many of the smaller businesses, in this industry, must do have to 
have these standards changed? That is make Microsoft have to go 
before these bodies to get these standards changed instead of being 
able to dictate to the whole industry a new standard. If this issue 
is not addressed Microsoft will be able to use this ability to 
change standards to continue their predatory monopoly actions even 
in the new Internet age. Can one company be allowed to dictate to 
the whole world how business should be ran? Should not Microsoft be 
forced to use common standards so that all competitors will have a 
    On page 39 the whole world has been told that Microsoft does not 
have to disclose protocols if these disclosures would compromise 
system security. Listed items are anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption and authentication 
features. First of all, Microsoft is not the only business that has 
had find ways to handle anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing, 
and digital rights management. Every business that produces software 
has had these issues and all of them have found a way to make them 
work. The only difference is that all the other business have not 
always be able to have both the OS and the application under their 
control. So these businesses have turned to common industry 
standards, and practices, to find a solutions. Why should Microsoft 
be able to change these standards just because they are the largest 
software company and control the OS and office suites? As far as 
encryption and authentication, how does this section protect the 
industry and consumer from being blackmailed by Microsoft into lower 
or less secure standards?
    How can this type of control and influence be bad for the 
consumer? Bill Gates once said to the German magazine (FOCUS) that 
bugs (defects) are unimportant 1. Also Microsoft, itself, has 
documented that there were 63,000 known defects in Windows 2000, 
W2K, when it shipped 2. If it is more important to Microsoft to get 
the product out than to get a properly running product out, how can 
Microsoft be trusted to do a protocol standard right without other 
industry leaders giving input?
    1. FOCUS Oct 23, 1995--found on-line at http://www.cantrip.org/
    2. Microsoft, Who Let the Bugs Out? osOpinion.com Oct 23, 2001--
found on-line at http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14306.html Page 
40 allows Microsoft to enter into a contract with a developer that 
limits that developer from promoting other competing software if 
such limitation are reasonably necessary. The problem here is what 
does this really mean. For example, if Microsoft is working on a 
contract with a business that has some existing file converters to 
bring in other word processing formats into Word for Windows, 
WinWord, can Microsoft restrict the contracting company from 
exporting from WinWord so that there is no way to convert out of the 
Microsoft product? How does this wording work in the internet 
business model?
    On page 45 the second paragraph talks about removing middleware. 
How is this effected with help files? No matter what browser is 
installed on a Microsoft computer, when the HTML help system is 
invoked Internet Explorer, IE, is the only browser used to display 
the HTML files. This means that no matter what browser is used to 
surf the internet IE must be present for HTML help to work. How does 
this section handle this issue? Does this not allow Microsoft to 
continue this practice?
    Also on this same page it is talked about the technical changes 
to W2K and XP, yet it only gives a timeline for the XP changes. What 
happens to W2K? There are many consumers that have privacy issues 
with XP so it is very important that W2K changes must be made and 
W2K must be maintained.
    On page 48 it states that Microsoft can not prompt a user for 
OEM custom changes for 14 days. Does this mean that Microsoft can 
then prompt the user all the time until they get so feed up with the 
prompts they allow Microsoft to change the computer configuration? 
Why is this even in the document? Is Microsoft saying that if an OEM 
sets up a computer that users are to stupid to change the factory 
settings? Why not leave users alone altogether? I give you all a 
hand for the concept of the TC. This is a great way to ensure that 
Microsoft abides by the settlement without creating a whole new 
branch of the government to do the oversight. I have just one 
question: Who's stupid idea was it to add the section on page 58 
that the TC information can not be used in any proceeding before the 
Court? Is this a ``get out of jail free card'' for Microsoft? Are 
you trying to make it cost the tax payer more money to make sure 
Microsoft plays by the rules? Is this a loophole that Microsoft can 
use later so that it can get off the hook after it has failed to 
follow this settlement? What am I missing? This is something to lead 
the public to believe that Microsoft is paying a price for breaking 
the law when it is doing nothing but rewarding Microsoft for do 
something that no other company has been able to do; break the law 
and get away with it? This whole section should be removed.
    Again on page 60 it looks like there is another loophole that is 
good for Microsoft and not for the consumer. It says that after the 
initial five years of this settlement the Plaintiffs may ask for a 
two year extension. What happens if Microsoft still has problems in 
the two year extension, nothing? What is the public to think about 
this? If Microsoft puts up with the TO long enough that everything 
will go away not matter what? Is this fair for a company that broke 
the law? On page 62, where there is a list of relief that was looked 
at but not part of the settlement. In this list there were a couple 
of items that I find hard to believe were not part of this 
settlement. I find these two issues to hard to skip over with the 
weight of what this outcome has on the consumer and the industry as 
a whole. The first one not ensuring that Microsoft includes non-
Microsoft middleware in its distribution of the Windows Operating 
System. The example here was the Java Virtual Machine, JVM. I go 
back to what I said before, are we to believe that only Microsoft 
knows where the direction of the industry should be going? Or should 
we take it that Microsoft should be allowed to find new ways to 
maintain it's monopoly at the expense of the consumer? What is it so 
hard to about Microsoft being require Microsoft follow industry 
standards like any other business? Is everyone afraid that Microsoft 
would have to compete with more competition if this is done? After 
all is it unreasonable for Microsoft to lower the barrier to entry 
since that was one of the key points of this whole case?
    The other item in this list was requiring Microsoft to fully 
support industry standards. Was this dropped because to force this 
on Microsoft would also allow other competitors into the market 
place? Does this point to this whole settlement being nothing more 
than smoke and mirrors? These two items alone could have great 
impact on restoring competition to the market. How could these have 
been overlooked, or removed from the list? Now lets look at some of 
the other overlooked problems with this settlement. Right now 
Microsoft seems to have a lot of security problems. This may be 
misleading in some ways. What I mean is that Microsoft may not be 
any worst at security than any one else, but because there is no 
other real competition it makes Microsoft a perfect target
    1. This would lead one to believe that for the public's best 
interest there needs to be a viable option to the Windows OS. This 

[[Page 24946]]

 never happen as long as Microsoft continues down it current path of 
total monopolization of the PC OS. This is where this settlement 
fails the most. I would hope that this is not that hard to see and 
understand, am I wrong?
    1. Good security administration is crucial by Madeline Bennett, 
IT Week Friday October 19, 2001. On Page 10 of Competitive Impact 
Statement there is a perfect commit that says that users want to 
know the OS will have the needed applications before investing in an 
OS. This is important observation. Where does this settlement help 
towards that goal? Or is it that this goal is to big of a price to 
be paid for hurting the consumer and destroying competition with 
predatory practices? How could the Declaration of Carl Shapiro be 
overlooked when he said that one of the reasons that Linux failed to 
be competition to Windows is because of the lack of popular 
applications like Microsoft Office 1. This alone would allow 
competition back into this industry. So why not have Microsoft port 
its office suite to Linux? Would this not help restore true 
competition without rewarding Microsoft for breaking the law? If 
Microsoft had to port this suite and was required to support it on 
the Linux platform for three years would not that do much better 
over all? Just think, if Microsoft had a product line on Linux, it 
would be less likely to ``expand'' industry protocols to lock out an 
OS that it would be trying to recover their expense for porting to. 
What would be wrong with this? Or are you saying that the industry 
and consumer are not important in this matter?
    1. Declaration of Carl Shapiro page 3. These types of relief 
would go very far to really help innovation by allowing true 
competition back into the market place. This is what this industry, 
and the consumer, need. Overall the current settlement penalizes 
other business for Microsoft's conduct and it even rewards Microsoft 
for breaking the law. This is a shame. I hope that this is reject 
and a real settlement that benefits the industry and consumers is 
    In the above commits it should also be clear that this 
settlement, as currently proposed, will do nothing in keeping 
Microsoft from using predatory practices with the way the current 
market is moving. We can not expect reliefs based off of the way the 
industry worked in the past to apply to the way it does business 
today when it is a different business world and the current 
settlement does not take that into account. This must not be 
overlooked if real relief is to be made for the consumer and for the 
industry as a whole. There are many ways that this settlement 
encourages Microsoft to continue its current goals for removing all 
competitors from the market and that means there was a lot of wasted 
money to get a court ruling that does not change anything. At what 
point will it finally be accepted that Microsoft will only learn a 
lesson if it required to give up some of its monopoly power? When 
will the industry and the consumer finally be defended?
    Thank You,
    David Demland


From: Robert Corkrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Move on!!!!!!!!!!The few attorneys generals holding up this 
settlement need to understand that everyone but them has moved 
on.It's a new economy stupid! thanks Bob


From: ginih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I disagree with the tearing apart of Microsoft. It seems if 
anyone in the U.S. comes up with a wonderful invention there is 
always someone who is jealous of them. They want a part of it & so 
they sue. Look at A.T.T. the little companys wanted a part of them. 
So they sued every time they started to go bankrupt. They also use 
the Bell Co. lines at very little cost. Do you think we could go 
into McDonalds & rent their grills for very little money? I don't 
think sooooo. It's time to tell the sue happy people to crawl back 
in their holes. If they can't come up with good ideas of their own, 
don't let them sue & steal from the Co.'s that are contributing to 
the economy. Let Microsoft alone, they are the creative Company.


From: Charlotte Kenworthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, It is my opioion that the Microsoft settlement is a fair 
and just settlement. It is time to move on and put this whole ordeal 
behind us. Competitors and special interest groups have carried this 
far enough...let's abide by given settlement. Charlotte Kenworthy


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is time for the government to leave Microsoft alone. 
Why not go after the drug manufacturers and their deals made with 
insurance companies. The under the counter deals are not in the best 
interest of the consumers and should be covered by anti trust laws. 
Microsoft is o.k. and even though I do not use their internet 
services, they continue to give me excellent service. I agree with 
Ted Kennedy when he said the case against Microsoft sounded like 
``sour apples''.I will continue to use the products of Microsoft 
even if they are more expensive because their products are more user 
friendly. Thank you,


From: Brent Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as proposed should be accepted by both parties. 
True, MS is a tough and ruthless competitor. That will force anyone 
attempting to break their dominant position to develop a new 
software or computing method that will be a significant improvement 
in order to impress the using public. The ``market'' is a rough and 
tumble setting, the higher the reward the greater the energy and 
risk taking and the more likely chance of really better, as opposed 
to merely different, products that will benefit the using community.
    Their are times when the MS programs drive me crazy with their 
uncorrected programming errors, syntax mistakes and just sloppy 
lines of code. But I trust the competitive market more than a 
government agency to bring me relief. Also, in my opinion the former 
lawyers in the anti trust division gave too much credence to the 
complainers(Netscape etc.,) who perhaps influenced this entire 
affair thru their campaign contributions and their political allies. 
It has been sordid from the start, so let's get it put to bed.
    Brent Kopp
    EarthLink: It's your Internet.


From: bevnels@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my opinnion, government should get out of the way of free 
enterprise and let it do the job it does so well!! Microsoft has--
and is--providing a good product at a fair price. Consumers are not 
    The ones unsatisfied are those who don't have the ability to 


From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi ! I would like to see the Microsoft case settled and let them 
have the right to innovate ! Thank you !!!!
    Clyed W. Butler


From: HDMcBRIDE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the government should settle, Micorsoft has been great for the 
ecomomy of the Northwest and has enabled business that use computers 
more competative.
    H.D. McBride


From: William C. Caccamise Sr. , M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has revolutionized the computer field and the 
practical use of the Internet by millions of people. It is the Jewel 
of the American capitalistic system. I have always felt that Mr. 
Gates should be given the highest civilian award offered by our 
government. The aggressive attack on Microsoft by the Clinton 
Administration was a disservice to the computer world and society 

[[Page 24947]]

    I know that my entire family including my grandchildren, my 
children, my wife, and myself--all avid computer users--are indebted 
to Microsoft for making the computer world and The Informational Age 
available to us in such a practicable manner. We hope that the DOJ 
will allow Microsoft to proceed freely in its unending goal of ever 
improving our access to the world of computers, software, and the 
    Thank you Microsoft--and Mr.. Gates--for making the retirement 
years of this 78 year old physician years filled with excitement and 
    William Charles Caccamise Sr, MD
    12 South Pittsford Hill Lane
    Pittsford, New York
    Telephone : 1-585-381-3855
    FAX: 1-585-385-1355


From: ann.reid@thomsonlearning.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to let the settlement regarding Microsoft go through 
for all states. It is of no benefit to anyone to delay this process 
any further. One of the many great American ideals is the free 
market economy in which the best companies can survive. Because a 
company is more innovative than its competitors is no reason to 
prevent it from continuing its business.


From: Supern1987@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25am
Subject: (no subject)
    Tell these renegade states to knock it off and get back to the 
nations business!


From: Muelgroup@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user, I feel that the settlement is more than 
fair. Consumers world wide have been benefitted by innovation 
created by competition. I firmly believe that Microsoft competitors 
are misusing the court system to gain what they could not attain in 
the market place.
    Edward J. Mueller
    15000 Village Greem Drive # 40
    Mill Creek, Wa 98012


From: BCStephenson@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible: the 
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
    Brad Stephenson
    San Marcos, CA


From: morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29am
Subject: Bill is God.
    Microsoft rules! Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    3024 west 25
    cleveland, oh, 44113
    Victories are temporary, however failure is forever.


From: Bob Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlelment
    May it please the court, I appreciate as a consumer, the 
opportunity, and right to comment on the settlement agreement 
between the Microsoft Corporation, and the United States Department 
of Justice. My comments come as a consumer, specific to the issues 
that relate to my purchase, use, and experience with the many 
software products available today, which include those developed and 
sold by Microsoft.
    In the roughly three years that this case has been under trial, 
I have read much of the available information on the trial, as well 
as the many, many statements given by competitors of Microsoft, and 
their concern with Microsoft's behavior, both before and during the 
trial. Never in my recollection of watching the business world have 
I observed such a concerted effort by numerous companies to malign 
and destroy the image, perception, and products, of a successful 
company. And what amazes me even more is that to a large degree, 
these companies employ many of the very same tactics used by 
Microsoft yet without any apparent threat of reproof. America Online 
(heretofore referred to as AOL) is a company that for every intent 
and purpose, has today the vast majority of Internet users as 
customers for their service. Effectively, they are presently as we 
speak, a monopoly in that industry. Yet to read any news publication 
today, the most that fact will bring is a limp assertion that yes, 
AOL is the predominant Internet Service Provider (heretofore 
referred to as ISP), with roughly 30 million subscribers, and it is 
left at that. No one is investigating AOL, no Congressional Hearings 
are scheduled, and in fact, great care is taken to ensure that their 
product and service in this industry is insulated from competition.
    During their recent merger with Time Warner, Inc., the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) had the opportunity in their review 
of the merger, to require AOL to make their instant messenger 
service compatible with other similar services. As a consumer, I can 
instantly relate to the importance and advantage of such a 
requirement. The FCC however did not capitalize on that opportunity, 
and as a result, the media giant continues to lock out users of 
other ISP services from communicating with AOL subscribers.
    In comparison, when I review and observe the Microsoft case, as 
well as comments associated, I see that products where I as a 
consumer realize a benefit, are under constant scrutiny, not only 
from the government, but even more so from competitors. For example, 
the various versions of the Windows operating system have for years 
offered a form of a media player, which is presently under dispute 
by many competitors, as that application or device resides within 
the latest version of the Windows product, Windows XP. For years 
that was not a concern, but now another company exists, 
RealNetworks, which offers for free a download player called 
RealPlayer. Suddenly a benefit that I had as a consumer with the 
purchase of an operating system is threatened because another 
company wants to limit what is contained within the operating 
system. Regardless of the fact that any consumer can download for 
free the RealPlayer, RealNetworks Inc., for one, among others, 
protests the inclusion of Microsoft's Media Player within the 
operating system because it competes directly with what RealNetworks 
would like to give away for free. The bottom line? As a consumer, I 
see the potential of a very robust and ``application capable'' 
operating system, one that offers me great flexibility and 
performance, being required to reduce it's service and functionality 
to me so that others can improve their opportunity to compete. Yet 
the fact is, this product offered by RealNetworks is an easy 
download, and is often loaded onto machines alongside of Microsoft's 
Media Player anyway. Twenty years ago, there might have been a case 
to consider here. Consumers were still getting their feet wet in 
determining the right hardware and software to purchase, and many 
were easily confused, and possibly misled in the process. Today 
however consumers are quite prepared to make well informed decisions 
about their hardware and software purchases. With a plethora of 
information available, through various forms of communication 
(media, print, Internet, classes, service companies, etc) the 
consumer has more than enough information available to help them in 
their purchasing decisions. And frankly, that is supposed to be what 
all of this is about:
    The consumer, and the protection of their purchasing power and 
decisions. In fact, everyone from Senator Orrin Hatch, to Ann 
Bingham (head of Antitrust Division, original investigation, 1995) 
to Judge Penfield Jackson has stated all along that the it was the 
consumer they were representing in their fight against Microsoft. 
However the ramifications of their actions has been anything but 
positive for consumers. I have today countless choices of software I 
can run on my PC, simply because of the operating system standard 
provided by Microsoft. I do not use Microsoft software exclusively, 
nor do any of the people I see regularly who work with computers. As 
a consumer, I feel I am quite well informed about what products 
exist in the marketplace, and I am quite confident I can make 
intelligent choices about the products I wish to purchase. However I 
believe that of ALL the interests represented in the courtroom, in 
the media, and in print, the consumer's interests have been the 
least heard or considered. Companies like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, 
AOL, Novell, Apple, & IBM are not nearly so interested in what works 
well for me as a consumer, as they are interested in gaining

[[Page 24948]]

market share for their own respective companies. If this settlement 
is derailed, through the lobbying of companies like this, it will 
prove once and for all that competition, and consumer choice in the 
marketplace, no longer determine or direct the outcome of products 
and services, as they have for the last several hundred years.
    Market share, and competitive advantage cannot and should not be 
awarded in a courtroom. The measures within this settlement 
agreement are sufficient to ensure that Microsoft cannot take unfair 
advantage of, or punish any company in the future. At the same time 
however it preserves Microsoft's right and ability to continue to 
provide the best product possible, which is for me, the consumer, 
the best and only appropriate outcome.
    The additional measures sought by the nine rouge states go well 
beyond what is necessary, and actually threaten the intellectual 
property of one of the country's most successful businesses (and 
this frankly, threatens us all). No other company in this country 
(or the world for that matter), has been required to dismantle it's 
showcase product, to it's own demise and destruction, simply to 
appease the wishes of less successful competitors. To do so now, 
would unfairly serve only those companies, and would destroy much of 
the gain realized by consumers through Microsoft's achievements in 
product integration. If this court truly values the purchasing power 
of millions of consumers, who are today quite savvy about what kinds 
of software they need and want, it will allow this settlement to 
stand, and repel the imperious demands of the nine states that 
remain as extreme and overreaching. Thank you for your time and 
attention to review my comments.
    Robert S. Rasmussen


From: Gary Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's 
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached 
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I 
overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for the industry 
and the American economy. I further believe prolonged litigation 
would only stifle inovation and just benefit a handful of well 
financed competitors. Sincerely,
    Gary A. Sanford
    17708 10th Ave N.E.
    Shoreline, Wa 98155-3706


From: Alfred Holzheu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Wake up and smell the coffee. We can buy the most incredible 
engineering marvel of our day (NT) or even Windows for the price of 
a video game. In what possible way has the public ever been harmed. 
This insanity (the whole government case against MS) could only be 
created and promulgated by entirely clueless lawyers, who have no 
conception of what it takes to create an operating systems or what 
life was like prior to MS. I doubt that they are angels, but no 
successful company ever is. The bottom line is what they have done 
to and for the general public and even mankind as a whole. I can't 
imagine any possible scenario that trivializes what MS has 
accomplished into something somehow detrimental to the public, the 
USA or mankind as a whole. Instead of taxing the public (and a tax 
it is, since MS must tack on the price of fighting the case to their 
products and we pay taxes to pay for the num-nuts who are 
prosecuting this case) with this ridiculous lawsuit, we should be 
cheering them on. About the only ``remedy'' that I can even possibly 
see is the requirement for MS to keep an open book regarding the 
various Window API's so that their well-earned and deserved defacto 
monopoly in the operating system area does not preclude others from 
creating useable and robust third party apps. Even this is a bit of 
a fool's errand, as the question as to exactly what an operating 
systems is, is in constant flux. I don't wish to pay lawyers forever 
chasing an accelerating train. There used to be a Hotel under 
construction in my town that we jokingly call the ``Old carpenters 
rest home'' because of the length of time it took to build it. I 
fear this lawsuit will become the same.
    Whenever a lawyer in the government's employ runs out of 
meaningful work to do, they can bill a few hours to the ``Never 
ending case''. Lets give this up, and stop penalizing MS and 
ultimately us by this frivolous lawsuit.
    Alfred Holzheu


From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I would not still be a Microsoft stock holder if I thought they 
were not a good American company . I think, the settlement should 
end as soon as possible.


From: Kimberly Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    To whom it may concern:
    Please don't see my address and figure I'm an MS employee, so 
she doesn't count.
    I am proud to be a Microsoft employee. I am a single mom who is 
able to send my child to private school and be involved in her 
school and activities. That's because Microsoft cares about people, 
and especially families and children. Last year, they donated 
hundred's of dollars, probably more than $1,000, worth of software 
to my daughter's school so they could learn on the latest, most 
innovative products. My daughter is 6, so her friends and she 
especially enjoy the Magic School Bus titles. I am very active in my 
community and church and let everyone know I work at Microsoft. As I 
said, I am very proud of that. Microsoft makes such a difference in 
our community, and the business world. We strive everyday to make 
someone's life better. We don't want to hurt others. We want to be 
the best. That's what I teach my daughter, to do the best she can at 
everything she does. What if her friends' parents started telling me 
to tell her to not work so hard, so they could catch up? Would that 
be fair to my daughter? No, and I imagine you would never tell that 
to your children.
    That's what you would be teaching by holding Microsoft back from 
being the best. ``If the competition gets better than you, we'll 
just hold them back until you can catch up''. That's not the ideals 
this country was founded on. ``Be your best'' was told to me 
everyday by my Granny who helped raise me. The anti-trust and anti-
competition laws were developed in times for businesses that had 
great, expensive barriers to entry. Partly due to Microsoft in some 
places, any person with a brain can go to a public library and learn 
to use a computer. Anyone could do what we do. Because we have 
passion for what we do, we do it well. So don't punish or hold us 
back because we have passion and drive. Let us continue to develop 
great software and great people, without having to wait on the 
competition to catch up.
    Thank you,
    Kimberly S. Helms


From: charles jenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Having lived through the debacle of the AT&T trial and the IBM 
trial, it seems to me that the case against Microsoft is weak, 
fostered by competing firms whose products were not of equal value 
and whose sales and marketing personnel were weak. In short, the 
competition to Microsoft did not have what it takes to succeed. Were 
it not for Senator Orin Hatch, I doubt that the case would have been 
launched. I discussed the merits of the Microsoft case with an 
attorney employed by a dot com company. I reflected upon the fact 
that each allegation against Microsoft is something I experienced in 
35 years of employment in financial services. His reply was 
``Microsoft got big doing it, therefore the case. If Microsoft had 
not become successful, no case.'' That seems to me to be unequal 
protection or administration of the law.
    The case should be closed promptly.
    Sincerely yours,
    Charles R. Jenner


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39am
    Enough already--this boondoggle should never have begun, it's 
long past time for it to END. For all the ``sins and crimes'' 
Microsoft has been accused of, not nearly

[[Page 24949]]

enough has been said and credited about their contribution to our 
society, our economy, and the future. If there's free time to 
investigate shady situations, start with ``representatives'' who 
give themselves a raise at midnight! In the context of the September 
11th attack and all it's consequences, while ``normal life and 
activities'' need to continue, we have no time, money or energy to 
continue pouring into this PERsecution ... and had we been putting 
the time, energy, and money into coordinating with Gates/Microsoft 
in our defense, is it possible September 11th might have been 


From: MooseK9@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department, Please wrap up the current settlement 
with Microsoft. As a tax payer I request that you stop wasting the 
governments money on this lawsuit against one of this countries best 
companies. Only the attorneys , Microsoft's competitors, and a few 
liberal politicians are profiting from prolonging this suit. Thank 
You. Gordon J Kinzler


From: OYZONE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43am
    Gentlemen, I feel that further litigation in this case is 
uncalled for, and the settlement seems fair to all involved. The 
settlement will certainly help the schools train the students in the 
use of computers. The settlement also puts Microsoft in the position 
of giving many of their innovations to the use of their competitors, 
which may tend to stifle further innovations. Also the cost of 
further litigation will be a burden on the taxpayers and Microsoft. 
I further feel that Judge Penfield Jackson had his mind set against 
Microsoft from the beginning of the trial, and there should have 
been an unbiased Judge appointed to take over the case.
    I am Clarence J. Muth, 125 N.55th Street, Mesa, AZ. 85205.


From: JRLowrance@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    To The Dept. of Justice.
    I personally think that the settlement between The U.S. Govt. 
and Microsoft should go forward because it seems like a fair 
agreement. The rights of the software company to protect its 
intellectual property, and the protection from monopolies for 
consumers seems to be balanced. To break up the company would not be 
in the best interest of either parties.
    Thank You
    John R. Lowrance
    8855 Whispering Oaks
    Redding Calif. 96002


From: RRB5331@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is the first time in 60 years as a citizen I have written 
to the government about an issue. I feel strongly enough about this 
one to write. Please settle the above case and stop trying to split 
this company up. You should have better issues to address than to 
ruin American Private companies. No wonder they go to foreign lands 
to do their business. The courts are the ruin of almost everything.
    Roger Baird
    Portland, Or.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement. 
First of all I think suing a comp that brought so much money and has 
created so many jobs for this country is totally out of line. You 
can not single hand out Microsoft for being the best in what they 
do, there are so many comp in this country that have monopoly (Las 
Vegas area could be a great example, casinos, convenient stores, 
shopping centers, all owned by one persons or one corporation). I 
believe Microsoft offer is great and the government should except 
that, and let them move forward in this really bad and unstable 
economy. Thank you so much for your time.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Retiring Persons 
Inc. devoted to creating senior housing that is gay and lesbian 
(LGBT) friendly. As an individual I wholeheartedly endorse the 
Microsoft Settlement--we need to get on and build America, not waste 
time with more litigation. It is crucial that this settlement be 
endorsed and passed.
    Veronica St.Claire, 310-478-2245, Los Angeles, CA


From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: MICROSOFT 01-03-2002
    To Whom It May Concern:


From: Ragnar de Sharengrad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Settlement
    First, I don't own Microsoft stock and don't work at Microsoft 
or any other company for that matter, so I don't speak from a 
selfish motif. I find the US obsession with anti trust insane and is 
again going too far, all under the disguise of ``what is best for 
the consumer''. I remember the Government going after IBM in the ' 
70s and vaguely remember a decade long fight. What were the big 
benefits to the consumer? It is easier to understand regulation of 
utilities as their products can be considered necessities in a 
modern society. Who is forced to use computers in first place and 
who is forced to choose Microsoft operating systems? Why don't they 
use UNIX or Linux or whatever is available instead? Why not use 
IBM's OS/2? If they can't compete whose fault is it?
    To me it smacks of socialism the way the State Governors and the 
Clinton Government go after Microsoft. They should be happy that 
Microsoft doesn't pull up stakes and move to another country. My 
native country is Sweden, where socialistic labor laws went hand in 
hand with general jealousy and equal income through repressive 
taxation (and still do). The net result has been that many good 
companies have either been driven to bankruptcy or have moved 
    I think Microsoft's and the Bush Government's proposed 
settlement should be accepted and the company then shielded from new 
ridiculous law suits.
    Ragnar de Sharengrad
    18325 129th Ave NE
    Bothell, WA 98011
    Phone: 425-483-0862


From: Jim Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hasn't this gone on long enough?
    Wouldn't it be in the best interest to get this behind us. I 
think that it would be a boost in the stock market and the economy 
to have this settled.
    Settle Now for the best of all of us.
    James Olson


From: NTPOCKETS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please bring this suit to a conclusion and let competition 
settle the score. I am pro Microsoft because I'm tired of buying 
products that aren't compatible, poorly configured, expensive and 
from companies attempting to be just as aggressive as MSFT has been 
accused of being but with a poor product line.
    This lawsuit is stiffling the software industry, hurting me as a 
consumer as few companies are developing and innovating compatible 
products until a settlement is reached.
    I made a choice in operating systems by rejecting Apple's 
offerings, Linux' offerings and I still use programs that aren't 
compatible with current MSFT programs because they work better for 
me! BUT,

[[Page 24950]]

Microsoft produces a product that evolves, improves and is 
affordable when it does change.
    When other companies get their act together and make something 
better...guess who'll be curious enough to check it out...me again.
    Staton Lorenz
    Half Mile Cycle Race Corp


From: Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Selllement
    I feel that this judgement or whatever has cost the tax payers 
enough and should be settled quickly.I believe that Microsoft has 
bowed over trying to settle this law suit for the benefit to the 
electronic industry and to the economy of our country.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this settlement. It is good for the consumer, and


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56am
Subject: Settlement
    Let's stop punishng Microsoft and get this thing overwith. Think 
of all the good things Microsoft could do in the way of research to 
benefit all of us if they weren't having to spend all these millions 
of dollars fighting a few disgruntled businesses who are afraid of 
competition, which is after all the American way of capitalism.
    Sincerely, William A. Kline
    Klinehaven@webtv.net or wmakline@yahoo.com


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We are sick and tired of the crybabies who want the last pound 
of flesh from Microsoft.....the feds settled their case and so did 
several states...tell the last few states fall in line and lets get 
it done once and for all... over and out.. Thank you... Rod and 
Barbara Hales.. Sherwood, Oregon 97140


From: Benjamin12148@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those in power:
    The entire system of ``Antitrust'' law is an abomination, and 
should be repealed and eliminated forever. ``Antitrust'' amounts to 
nothing more than punishing production because it is production. If 
you want a detailed argument for this position, read Chairman Alan 
Greenspan's article, ``Antitrust'', in the book, --Capitalism: The 
Unknown Ideal--. (Rand, Ayn, editor. New York: The New American 
Library, Inc., 1967, p. 63-71.)
    Because ``Antitrust'' is in principle a moral and economic 
equivalent of poison, we should have as little of it as possible. 
Microsoft has done nothing wrong, and is a paragon of production. So 
be as lenient on Bill Gates and his associates as you have the 
courage and integrity to be. If you have a choice between punishing 
Microsoft and losing your job, think of another line of work. It 
will be better for the world, for America, and for your own souls.
    Ben Steinhart, M.A.
    8699 Kenberton Dr.
    Oak Park, MI, 48237-1732
    (248) 544-7245 home (248) 435-5353 work


From: EVLANDFJL@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
    It is my belief that prolonging litigation is not in the ``best 
interest'' of our economy or concerned citizens. I will concur the 
agreement you reached tentatively is in the ``best interest'' of all 
consumers...so stop procrastinating and allowing these special 
interest groups to intervene. Get the show on the road and settle 
this case! This is absolutely ridiculous and very costly to everyone 
by allowing such utter nonsense to continue this long. Please allow 
Microsoft the freedom to innovate! Thank you for your time and 
consideration in allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion 
regarding this settlement.
    Frances Leonardini


From: Jan Rhees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:59am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    From all indications, this appears to be a fair, and adequate 
settlement, and I encourage you to validate the settlement decision 
and move on. Let this be the end of it.
    Thank you,
    Jan Rhees


From: Bob Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks,
    I've watched the onslaught against Microsoft for ``years'' now. 
Remember when Microsoft ``bundled'' Internet Explorer with 
windows??? At this same time Netscape was SELLING its Navigator 
Navigator for $50.00 to every individual who wanted to surf the 
internet. Now AOL (owns Netscape) YES, gives away FREE Netscape 
Navigator to anyone who wants to download it to their computer!!!!!! 
Has the U.S. Government ever figured out how many million $50.00 
bills have been saved by ALL computer users. Yes, Microsoft inovated 
and forced COMPETITION and AOL was forced to give away the $50.00 
Netscape Navigator for free. Hasn't the American consumer saved 
BILLIONS of American dollars as a result.
    If the American consumer has suffered as some have suggested 
please tell me how much money I would have saved if both Microsoft 
and AOL charged me $50.00 for each new version of Netscape Navigator 
or Internet Explorer??????!
    Let competition FORCE down prices and let a company like 
Microsoft (Large enough to compete internationally) bring revenues 
to the United States from around the world. Our deficit is already 
to large and Microsoft has NOT added ONE CENT to the United States 
excessive deficit spending! Why not show the American consumer how 
much money Microsoft cost them or saved them! Most people are not 
stupid and what ever you do REMEMBER politicians and government 
officials WILL be remembered at the polls...
    From Just ONE concerned citizen
    Robert H. Powers


From: kerryduwaldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:02am
Subject: In Favor of settlement in the Microsoft case
    Speaking as both a shareholder of Microsoft and as a long time 
user of many of their products, I am strongly in favor of a swift 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. I feel that competitors 
of this great company have brought this suit against Microsoft just 
because they have not been able to produce products that are as good 
as Microsoft's products. These disgruntled companies have been 
wasting their energy on trying to break up Microsoft when they 
should have been trying to improve their products in an effort to 
compete with Microsoft. I think it is very sad that so much time and 
money has been wasted in this no win case. This anti-trust suit is 
bad for consumers. Microsoft should be spending their time producing 
better and better products for us, the consumers and not spending 
their time in court because of a few mediocre companies.


From: Tim Sedlack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very disappointed to see special intrest groups (read: 
Microsoft's chief competitors) having such influence on the court. I 
feel it's wrong to stifle competition, even for the industry leader. 
Microsoft is in the position it's in because it provides (usually) 
reasonably priced highly functional software that adheres to most 
standards. I critically evaluate software for purchase and choose 
based on price/functionality. Microsoft is a consistant winner, but 
not the only one. Why

[[Page 24951]]

are you letting thier competitors sway you? Can we expect to see the 
same rules applied to AOL--the largest software/service company in 
the world? Where are the lawsuits against them? After having 
recieved seeming thousands of offers ``Free hours'' on AOL, I can 
say that they are more of a thorn in my side than Microsoft.
    Tim Sedlack


From: G. S. Rana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the MS settlement reached by DOJ. The 3 member 
overseeing board makes the settlement tough, and frankly much more 
than I would have expected MS to face.


From: coinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel this has gone on long enough. I say let the settlement 
stand as it is now. Get it over with and lets move on.
    Ray Harcourt Jr.
    669 Stable Gate Ln
    Florence, Ky. 41042


From: Patnich44@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I believe that enough is enough. The Microsoft case has drug on 
for years now and it is time to settle it and be done with it. The 
settlement is fair to all sides. Lets not waste more money and time 
litigating this issue.
    Patricia Nicholoff
    Edmonds, WA.


From: Ricky Loynd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly in favor of this settlement. It is more than 
sufficient to redress the affects of any of Microsoft's alleged 
anticompetitive behavior.
    Ricky Loynd


From: Karl Van Blankenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please go forward with the settlement in the case with 
Microsoft. It would be beneficial for the public/consumers and be 
best for allowing the justice system to focus on other matters of 
more pressing nature.
    Best Regards,
    Karl Van Blankenburg


From: AlbertoCSerrano@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Microsoft:
    It is time to end this litigation that in my estimation does not 
benefit the consumers and helps mostly attorneys. God knows the US 
has more of them than most countries, a dubious honor in my 
    Prolonging this suit can only help line the pockets of 
litiginous lawyers, ultimately at the cost of consumers who 
suposedly should be the beneficiaries!
    Hang in there!
    Alberto C Serrano, MD


From: Evinrude2@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
The federal government and nine states have reached a comprehensive 
agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in 
the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. The end.
    Jerry Harris
    5059 Newmans-Cardington Road East
    Cardington, Ohio 43315-9609


From: Donald Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is in the best interest of the public. 
Microsoft should be allowed to continue their creative strategy and 
continue to produce effecetive products which gives pleasure to the 
public and empowers the average citizen to produce work efficiently.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Donald H. Foster


From: BESTEFAR99@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This suit was suspect to begin with, so lets get on with the 
business of developing better products and let the market place 
decide which is the best.
    C. H. Schmoll


From: Jarim4@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this to voice my opinion. Please settlement the 
litigation as soon as possible. I believe that the Microsoft 
Corporation has offered a just settlement, we need the 
responsibility of our court system to take charge and dismiss any 
other suits by small interest groups as the majority have voiced its 
opinion for the good of the majority. Thank you.
    John Anthony Rim


From: Jim Beebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear DOJ,
    I just want to say that I think the work of Microsoft has been 
of great benefit to the economy of this country and they should not 
be penalized for making products that do well in the marketplace. If 
they had not continued to innovate and improve their products this 
computer would not be half as easy to use. I am starting to use 
their new operating system XP and it is a huge improvement. Imagine 
if all we had was the old DOS system. I am not and never have been 
an employee of MS, just a satisfied customer that wants to see them 
continue to do what they do so well.
    James L. Beebe
    P.O. Box 65472
    Port Ludlow, WA 98365


From: Needham, James P
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Time to Move On
    As a observer of the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, I must 
tell you that as a consumer, I have never been harmed by Microsoft. 
The continuous actions of a few State AGs seems to be more about 
them getting good press to push their own personal political agenda 
that to look out for consumers. Our Country is in a recession, we 
need companies like Microsoft to innovate so we can increase 
productivity and the value of American products. I am certainly not 
an expert but it would seem to me that the current anti-trust laws 
were enacted to address the smoke stack industries in a non-global 
marketplace. What seems obvious to the average person on the stress 
apparent escapes the politicians and the high priced political 
appointees. If the Netscape's of the world cannot compete let them 
get the hell out of the way. It seems that the government and the 
some of the states want to decrease competition and innovation by 
restricting Microsoft. How stupid.
    CC: Dennis Hastert (E-mail), Don Nichols (E-mail), Georg...


From: gtech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone and worry about your own problems, 
which there are many.


From: JHanker702@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to voice my APPROVAL for the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I believe it is good for consumers, good for the 
competition and good for our economy.

[[Page 24952]]

Further delays or additional litigation will damage both the 
technology industry and our free enterprise system.
    John Hankerson
    2641 262nd Place SE
    Sammamish, WA 98075


From: BOBJAZLOVR@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31am
    MICROSOFT became a ``monopoly'' by offering consumers a product 
that simply beat the pants off their competition(IBM, Apple, Sun , 
Linux to name a few) To this day none of these companies have ever 
developed a mass market operating software system to come close to 
MSFT. Microsoft then proceeded to improve its basic operating system 
to make it easier for the msft customer to access the internet and 
have the added capability of having the browser interact with its OP 
systems in a simple, easy manner to learn and operate. So far the 
consumer is not complaining, not about the bundling, not about the 
price, not about the fact that computer hardware mfrs and retailers 
have all this great stuff preloaded on their machines so all the 
consumer has to do is plug in the computer, follow a few simple 
instructions and they are off to do a lot of very productive, or non 
productive work, as they can choose to do! If you read the latest 
numbers, the number of people ordering merchandise of all sorts on 
the internet has been booming, recession or no recession. So far 
MSFT has offered a superior product, offers it at reasonable price, 
and has made it possible for people of all ages to learn to use the 
internet to satisfy new workplace requirements and support new 
internet businesses. So what's wrong with this picture? Consumers 
are not injured in any way. They are free to buy Apple computers, if 
they like, they can buy a machine and have linux loaded as the 
operating system, if they like, or java ,or unix or IBM's O/S, if 
they like, except that they don't!! MSFT doesnt make the computers, 
or any components, all they do is supply software that is designed 
to function as easily and smoothly as possible with the latest bells 
and whistles that the hardware makes possible. Their complaining 
competitors, some of which are much larger than MSFT, are free to do 
better, but they have'nt. Have you seen any new browser products 
being offered by these crybaby's to compete with Explorer...??? The 
MSFT software, a miniscule and continually declining % of the price 
of the newest computers, whose prices keep going south even as the 
capabilities of the machines are ten fold from a few years ago!
    Having done all this, no harm except to non competitive 
competitors, seems evident to me and that is no different from the 
situation in any number of other industries.
    Go to any department store and you will see the same brands 
featured in every major store. Why is that not being investigated? 
Tobacco companies offer discounts to gain shelf space, so do 
companies like P&G, How about those sales of coca cola and pepsi 
that never occur at the same time. One week Pepsi, next week Coke. 
Hello, does this look like normal competition? You don't see gas 
stations alternating promotions with the guy across the street, they 
match prices a dozen times a day!!
    MSFT has not done anything any other company would not do to 
grow and survive competitive challenges. Are they hardnose? Yes! So 
what's new? I recall Netscape execss claiming they were going to 
develop a browser that would ``surround'' the MSFT operating system 
and make it subservient to the Netscape browser?? Sun has been 
screaming JAVA for years, but where's the Sun Java O/S to go head to 
head with MSFT? Same with Linux, where's the beef? So, let MSFT get 
on with what it does best...software that keeps adding ,improving 
without wasting our taxes chasing a great company that leads not 
only the US, but any company in the world in it's field!!! Are we 
upset we have one standard VCR format? Arent we trying to 
standardize digital?, broadband, telecom systems to broaden 
efficient use and make it easier for consumers? MSFT has done that 
with out any GOvt help. Tell the states to look for some other patsy 
to try and extort money from and leave MSFT alone. Do no harm to 
consumers is the litmus test for anti trust,,,there is none here. 
You want to protect choice? Consumers have already chosen ...with 
their pocket books...let it go!!
    Thank you...a citizen who thinks the DOJ has better things to do 
with our taxes!!!
    Robert Conti


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that the Microsoft Operating System provides a very 
large value to computer consumers. I have been using PC's since they 
appeared and ``microcomputers'' prior to that. Software was very 
expensive back then . Feature for feature, today's software is a 
real bargain. Consumers have not been harmed by Microsoft, instead 
have benefited from the many useful products given as part of the 
package. Also, remember the thousands of developers who can write 
software for a Microsoft Operating System knowing that tens of 
millions of people are their potential customers. They could not 
afford to develop code for many OS's only one. If they have a good 
product they will make money and pay taxes. I am a great fan of the 
Microsoft brand. They are an example of how great a company can grow 
in our free enterprise system.
    Tom Gilmer


From: mstat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I just want to go on record as opposing this golddigging 
settlement attempt to fleece microsoft. I sit here at my Compaq 
computer with Windows XP, using my Microsoft Internet Explorer to 
access this website and type this response. To me, Microsoft is part 
of AmericTa...a great part. They are family to me. I am upset at the 
effort to discard competition, innovation, and the assumption of 
entreprenureal risk in my country, all for the unscrupulous receipt 
of ill-gotten monetary gains. LEAVE THEM ALONE! Microsoft is as 
American as apple pie and a great success story. They have 
(partially) shaped the way I live and communicate. This shameless 
attempt to extort money is dispicable.
    Mark D. Statler MD


From: Sharon Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair as it stands now. This has been 
going on long enough. End it and lets all get back to business.
    Sincerely, Sharon Wood


From: KULINA@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here is my opinion: the DOJ should discontinue wasting the 
government's(my taxes)monies on prosecuting or mediating a 
settlement. I, as a consumer of computer products, never felt harmed 
by Microsoft. The nine states not settling are fishing for money and 
the courts should dismiss any actions filed by them. I think the DOJ 
should be held in contempt for ``restraint of trade''. One man's 
    Marty Kulina
    206. 972.9704


From: Bruce (038) Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Enough is Enough... Settle the case!!... It is an embarrassment 
to the rest of the free world to continue to allow states whose 
interest/allegence/financial backing is with competitor companies 
like SUN, Oracle, etc--drag this court battle on further....
    My wife and I are software engineers and we both feel that 
Microsoft software is the most user-friendly and supportable product 
line available... Unfortunately, companies like SUN didn't take the 
time/energy/funding to make the UNIX operating system easy to use 
for the common user... It is their own problem that they didn't have 
superior enough products to compete with Microsoft's products... 
Microsoft did not force people to use their products... People use 
them because they are good, easy to use, readily available, etc... 
And Microsoft products (operating system, applications, etc) are 
fairly priced...
    It is unfortunate we have to hear from whiney company executives 
from SUN, Oracle, etc--keep droning on and on and on about 
Microsoft's unfair business practises... We need to put an end to 
this sorry part of US high-tech history, and let companies like 
Microsoft get on with their business...
    Bruce and Leslie Pleshko

[[Page 24953]]

    Aiea, Hawaii


From: Joe Masters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I support this settlement. Let's move on.
    Joe Masters
    434 Floral Way
    Rohnert Park, CA 94928


From: Alihatami@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    a quick settlement is the best for the consumer, industry , 
Microsoft and Microsoft competitors. If Microsoft competitors had 
spent half of the money and other resources (which they are spending 
to drag the case against Microsoft) to develope a new product, they 
would have possibly come up with a product to compete with 
Microsoft. please understand the situation and close the cae ASAP.
    Ali Hatami


From: Stephen.Schaefer@emis-intl.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a travesty. There is nothing here to prevent 
Microsoft's continued use of its monopoly position to destroy any 
software innovation they do not own. Microsoft must be deprived of 
the means to maintain that monopoly. A number of possible means to 
that end are possible, inlcuding: publishing all their source code; 
or making all their operating system interfaces and protocols public 
on the same basis that internet protocols are made public, i.e., 
with complete documentation and reference implementations made 
freely available, for any lawful use whatsoever, including, but not 
limited to, the construction of a competing operating system. A 
company that truly benefits the public with their systems will 
thrive in such a competitive environment, just as Cisco Systems 
does. Microsoft's egregious and perpetual contempt for the public 
welfare leaves them no claim to anything other than a competitive 
environment, if indeed they deserve to continue to exist as a public 
    Stephen P. Schaefer
    Computer Systems Administrator
    Masters of Science in Computer Science, UNC--Chapel Hill 1993


From: William HAYES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58am
Subject: I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their 
software. The only people I know that are
    I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their 
software. The only people I know that are objecting to the way 
Microsoft does business is people who want to pirate their software 
from me and the ones that think that they should be allowed open 
access to hack into it easier. As a result of the foresight and 
vision brought by Microsoft,the price of home computers has come 
down to the point that every household can afford them and every 
child can learn to program them and use them if they have the 
ability and want to use them. Many advancement have been recognized 
and supported by Microsoft by developing software to support it.
    Microsoft is a major source of the balance of payments with 
other countries. Microsoft has given the US the a technological lead 
that should help keep the US on sound financial footing, but that 
financial lead could be overturned by an AT&T type of mistake that 
will only lead to higher costs and unsettling lack of leadership in 
home computers.
    William C. Hayes


From: GDoman4603@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice January 2, 2002
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I have the opinion that the Microsoft people were, and are, 
innocent anent the manufacture and propagation of their software-
items which are, by very definition, not harmful.
    Sincerely from Geoffrey Doman
    13900 Cohasset Street
    Van Nuys, CA


From: Philip R. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the Tunney Act should be adopted for the parties 
involved. I think that given the circumstances, it is fair and 
equitable to both sides. It is more important than ever, for the 
litigation to stop and the productivity to move forward. Competition 
is good for everyone involved. Microsoft began as a startup company 
and had to endure all kinds of competition to get it where it is 
today. They provided a need for a product and consumers voted with 
their pocketbooks. They did not try to legally ``remove'' or render 
helpless their then competitors.
    Please move forward with this issue.
    Philip Palumbo


From: PILOTGGG@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    After a tough recession, with many people out of work, it is 
HIGH TIME to get this country moving again ! Expedite the fair 
settlement of the Microsoft case !
    Pilot GGG@AOL.com (Gunter Gigas)


From: Steve (038) Robin Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  8:33pm
    It's definitely time to settle the Microsoft case. I felt that 
the suit was frivolous to begin with and the fact that it has 
dragged on for so long trying to cripple a company that has done so 
much just completely angers me. I think the message this suit sends 
is 'that if you are great at what you do and make a product better 
than your competitor then we are going to make you pay.' I really 
hope everyone involved can settle this case and move forward.
    Robin L. Lee


From: bcathcart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Give it a rest already. Stop the litigation. Without Microsoft 
all of those pencil neck attorneys would still be writing their 
briefs on a legal pad.
    Bill Cathcart


From: zeta54@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do America a favor-settle this case by terminating DOJ action 
against Microsoft! This litigation has destroyed huge valuations in 
the tech stock market, financially injuring lots of 
shareholders(direct and in mutual funds) and pension funds. It may 
also be responsible for terminating the great bull market and 
causing the start of the economic downturn, thanks to Billy Clinton 
and his juvenile delinquent administration.
    No, I'm not a Microsoft employee or direct stockholder. I am a 
user of their products. Are they the best? Probably not. Are they 
the PC standard? Don't you know it!
    Bill Drake
    Bothell, WA


From: Fred B. McCarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft established the de facto standards for the software 
industry that caused the phenomenal growth and success that astounds 
the world and enriches our country. Microsoft is the goose that lays 
golden eggs. LET MICROSOFT ALONE! Microsoft continually strives to 
improve the quality and value of its products. The people who 
complain about Microsoft's leadership are whiners who seek to rely 
on politics and lawyers instead of technical excellence and fair 
prices. Most of the businesses that now oppose Microsoft would never 
have achieved their present status and success without the 
standardization established by Microsoft and its unrelenting 
pressure to improve software and explore new technology.

[[Page 24954]]

    When our government tries to cripple a successful business, to 
punish technical innovation, to create chaos where there is order, 
to stifle legitimate competition, it is the beginning of the end of 
our prosperity! Don't meddle with a miracle! Go and sin no more!
    Fred B. McCarty, P.E.


From: Chris Blount
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe it is time to finish the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft. I believe the proposed settlement as accepted by 
Microsoft is fair and should thus terminate this matter once and for 
    I have yet to find even one person in Alaska who can honestly 
say he or she has been harmed by Microsoft; to the contrary 
Microsoft technologies have been extremely advantageous for bush 
    D.O.J. should not let itself be degraded and used by inferior 
competitors or manipulated by Congressmen from competitor's 
districts and states to fight in the market place.
    Please accept the settlement now and end this matter for good.
    Sincerely yours,
    Chris T. Blount
    PO Box 503
    Nome, AK 99762


From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on proposed settlement for civil action No. 98-1232: 
Without doubt, I cannot agree more with the proposed settlement. 
Primarily for the following reasons:
    1. In the civil action, numerous allegations are presented that 
are no more than unproven statements of marketing hype and 
propaganda. It's no surprise that the statements are one-sided and 
ignore Netscape's public comments regarding their planned demise of 
Microsoft's commercial viability, which are as meaningless as the 
civil action allegations. In the civil action complaints, the 
authors excel at presenting misleading information.
    2. There is a near-monopoly in PC operating systems, however it, 
has been created by competitor incompetence, sloth and greed. PC 
OEM's are only interested in what earns them the most profit and 
America's millions of large and small businesses cannot afford the 
expense of maintaining, training, installing and resolving the 
compatibility issues of networking multiple PC operating systems. As 
it is, having to maintain separate server and desktop PC operating 
systems is more than enough headache and there are strong financial 
forces to compel the integration of these systems.
    3. Microsoft failed at the outset to enhance Windows Explorer to 
have the capabilities of Internet Explorer. The Internet is simply 
one large array of networked hard drives. Every computer should be 
able to connect to these shared drives. There is no need for 
separate ``Explorers'' or ``Navigators''. However, there is nothing 
to prevent a competent product from being commercially successful if 
consumers and businesses identify ownership value. Unfortunately, 
there has never been a sizeable market for a separate ``browser''. 
Netscape's theft of the browser concept and attempt to create a 
marketable product is something they have every right to attempt, 
but this product concept is doomed from the beginning. Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer was offered to consumers who wanted to update 
their browsing capability, but did not want to update their 
operating system; otherwise there is no reason to make it a separate 
program since it is conceptually integral to an operating system and 
control of the directly attached and networked computer hardware.
    4. Alternative operating systems have done poorly in the 
marketplace for reasons of commonality, cost of training and lack of 
return of investment for businesses. Consumers are an integral part 
of companies and gain most of their computer knowledge on the job 
and therefore share the same beliefs which they pass on to their 
lesser experienced friends. The Apple monopoly could have been 
wildly successful, except they chose to maintain high prices and 
monopolize their hardware designs. The only high business cost of 
operating system entry is hard work, investment and technical 
competence. Allegations that a Microsoft operating system monopoly 
makes it more difficult to market a competing operating system are 
nonsense. This is as absurd as saying that no new products of any 
kind can be invented because everything has already been invented. 
There are no barriers to marketing any other software products as 
thousands of large and small companies have done, provided they have 
a viable marketing concept and consumers consider the product to 
have value.
    5. There is no browser threat to an operating system. This is a 
totally ludicrous statement and is not just my opinion, but the 
opinion of hundreds of PC experts that have published over and over 
again how totally void of technical knowledge such a statement is. 
Quoting Microsoft statements to the contrary is simply misuse of 
marketing propaganda, proves nothing, and has no basis in fact. Do 
you believe everything you hear in commercial TV advertisements?
    6. Software that runs on multiple operating systems is no threat 
to Microsoft. JAVA, which is not a competitor to the Microsoft 
operating system, is being avoided more and more by many PC users 
because it is the language of choice of many hackers and PC 
terrorists. The success of JAVA is only dependent on its authors 
making it a safe and viable product. JAVA's technical competence and 
business acumen are on trial in the eyes of the market place. I know 
of no reason to run JAVA on my computer and simply avoid all web 
sites that try to load it on my machine. Microsoft does not force 
any PC user to install their operating system. But, like junk email, 
numerous web sites offer to install JAVA on Internet users computers 
on a daily basis. Linux, Unix, Beos and several other operating 
systems are available, but do not provide the features and benefits 
of Windows and will not even be considered by businesses for desktop 
computers for these reasons.
    7. This civil action has never been in the interest of 
consumers. Netscape and Sun have used their political influence to 
leverage anti-trust concepts to a new level of distortion. Ambitious 
politicians like Bill Lockyer have been financially induced to 
support egregious legal actions by companies that have lost billions 
of hardware dollars to windows PCs. That is, thousands of small 
companies that could not afford $60,000 work stations with 
proprietary UNIX software, can now use $3,000 PCs to engineer 
products that consumers demand. Increased productivity in thousands 
of industries due to Microsoft innovation is the real benefit of a 
free market. This is why Sun is losing billions due to the demise of 
their hardware empire and why they are in such a panic to get 
revenge by destroying Microsoft. They are misusing the legal system 
to compensate for their business failings. I am not now, nor have I 
ever been a Microsoft employee or employed by any organization 
working for Microsoft. I am a mechanical engineer, consumer and 
computer hobbyist. For a few years, I did struggled with the issues 
of providing computer services to fellow engineers and I learned to 
dislike a number of large, arrogant, 3-letter-named computer/
software companies. Their adversarial attitudes and ludicrous prices 
will remain etched in the minds of an entire generation that today 
prepare the budgets in many corporations.
    Steven Black
    1916 Camas Court SE
    Renton, WA 98055


From: Don Holtzinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice.
    I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find 
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes 
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards 
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth. 
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special 
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their 
names in the public spotlight.
    Thank you.
    Don Holtzinger
    17605 NE 101st Court
    Redmond, WA 98052


From: RGA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement that you have negotiated with Microsoft is in the 
best interest of all

[[Page 24955]]

involved. I urge you to fulfill your promises in that settlement and 
defend it in Court, in Congress, and in the press.
    It is obvious that the critics are either competitors who cannot 
compete in the market without outside assistance, or people like 
Sen. Hatch whose influential constituents are apparently those same 
    This is no place for the tainted political process to interfere 
with entrepreneurial success and risk-taking.
    Gordon Appleman


From: Don Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice:
    I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find 
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes 
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards 
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth. 
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special 
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their 
names in the public spotlight.
    Thank you.
    Donnie Barren


From: Histone6@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the entire persecution of Microsoft was unnecessary, 
uncalled for and a waste of tax payers money. The settlement is 
another form of government extortion. I do not feel one bit safer, 
one bit freer, one bit more capable of making purchasing decisions 
with the Federal government having filed this suit and all the 
attendant cost to us via taxes and the revenue lost to the 
government with Microsoft being able to deduct their legal expenses.
    Do not waste another minute of time or expense on this issue. 
This entire issue was a display of blatant class envy. The foremost 
users of class envy where the communists. Are their any correlations 
    Allow Microsoft the ability to do charitable works with school 
systems they select.
    Thank You,


From: Theresa Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my opinion that the Microsoft case be 
settled without further litigation. I think further litigation is 
not in the best interest of the consumer, economy, or the industry. 
As a consumer, I do not feel damaged by Microsoft, but quite the 
opposite, and think that further litigation is only politically 
motivated and costly to the American taxpayer and economy.
    Thank you,
    Theresa Hancock
    103 Patrick Ct.
    Sunnyside, WA 98944


From: Ken (038) Michelle Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete the settlement on the Microsoft case. Please 
include my voice with those wanting you to accept the proposed 
    Thank you
    Ken Walters
    4506 226th ST SW
    Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043


From: Brenda Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement. Our state and our 
country need to put this to rest and Microsoft has done everything 
to come to a fair agreement.
    Thank you,
    Brenda Wagner
    4245 230th Way SE
    Sammamish WA 98075


From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I hope that the settlement reached between Microsoft, the 
federal government and several states will be allowed to stand. Lets 
end this thing in one more effort to get the economy moving again! I 
am 77 years of age and do not remember a circumstance before where a 
few competitors of a company, along with a few quisle-like 
congressional representatives, have been able to derail our system 
of competition with so little basis. Please do whatever you can to 
ensure that deserving contributors get their due, and that those who 
want to compete by deriding the deserving get exactly what I feel 
they have earned. Nothing.
    Mark Thome, Bellevue, Washington


From: Cym98gz@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge:
    I feel Microsoft have done too much to settle this antitrust 
case. Their products are so good and easy to use. I think it is time 
to let the company continue to do their business.
    Microsoft consumer


From: Daniel Wahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Department of Justice ought to be morally condemned 
for even charging Microsoft with the alleged crime of coercing its 
very satisfied customers (of which I am one out of many). I am 
writing this using my hotmail account, a free service given to 
everyone by Microsoft. I am on the internet via Explorer, thanks to 
Microsoft. Hell, I can even navigate myself around on the computer 
thanks to this company. Because of this (and more) are you actually 
asking me whether I think the punishment for Microsoft is too soft? 
Hell no it's not too soft! They shouldn't be punished at all. And, 
despite mumbling that the company's prosecution was a ``victory for 
consumers everywhere'' Janet Reno knew this. So does Ashcroft.
    What they both know, but fail to admit, is that Microsoft has 
gained its market dominance, not by using fraud or force, but by 
consistenly offering better (more popular) services and products for 
a cheaper price than their competitors. Is it for their achievements 
that this company has been damned? If the new Department of --
Justice-- wants to prove it has a right to actually bear that name, 
it should ``ettle'' with Microsoft by first apologizing, then paying 
restitution for any money that the firm has lost as a result of this 
immoral trial.
    --Daniel Wahl, Kannapolis, NC


From: Elizabeth R. Baecher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:47am
Subject: Settlement
    Had government applied the same zeal regarding US security as 
they had harassing Microsoft, New York City undoubtedly would still 
have its skyline intact and thousands of lives would not have been 
uselessly lost.
    Please feel free to pass these comments on.
    Elizabeth R. Baecher
    Mount Kisco, New York


From: John Grubb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The best thing that can happen for the whole country and the 
economy is to settle the case against Microsoft. The technology 
industry moves so quickly that the government should be more 
concerned about companies like AOL, than Microsoft. AOL is a perfect 
example of a company positioned to take control of the digital media 
business from end to end. Focus on the future, not the past! Many 
say it is a coincidence that the stock market dived sharply when it 
was announced the first time that negotiations between Microsoft and 
the plaintiffs had been broken off. I however think there was a 
direct correlation, and the longer this thing drags on, the worse it 
is for everyone.
    The states that are not part of the current settlement happen to 
have major Microsoft competitors headquartered in their states, what 
a coincidence. These companies need to innovate and stop litigating. 
I find it hard to understand why everyone is up in arms

[[Page 24956]]

over Microsoft, when government backed monopolies like Airbus 
Industries in Europe exist to compete unfairly against Boeing. The 
US is not able to trade freely with many other nations on this 
planet, yet we waste our time attacking our own companies. I can 
only imagine how many countries would love to have a Microsoft. Yet, 
instead of enjoying such a successful company, our country seeks to 
destroy it. What a huge waste of resources.
    Yes, my tax dollars and many other hard working American's tax 
dollars. Where does it stop? Please do not forget that Microsoft 
commoditized the personal computer industry. If we had three or four 
major PC OS vendors, then software would cost more, and do less. 
Having a common standard to write to is very good for the consumer. 
What if we had four different standards for electricity. A company 
who makes blenders would have to make four flavors to accommodate 
the different standards. Of course they would have to pass the cost 
of the extra tools to make the four flavors along to the consumer.
    As for integrating into the OS useful tools and utilities like a 
browser or media player, I think it is good. Even though Netscape 
has failed to technically innovate in a long time, Microsoft's 
browser gets better and better even though it does not have to. When 
I bought my first PC I spent hundreds of dollars on utilities, that 
often did not work well with my DOS OS. When I called for support I 
was told it was an OS problem, call IBM. I would rather integrate 
than have to spend more money to buy the extras I need from a third 
    Some food for thought, a good spreadsheet, word processor and 
graphics package in the mid-1980's cost about $500 each, for a grand 
total of $1,500. None of them worked together and the menu systems 
were different on each. Sharing data between them was far from easy. 
Today you can buy the same three packages from Microsoft for about 
$500 for all three, and they work very well together. Sounds pretty 
good to me.
    As a market leader, Microsoft does not have to innovate at the 
rate it does. That is what happened to so many other software 
vendors--they viewed success as a destination. Microsoft views 
success as a journey, one that they are always shooting for.
    In closing I will admit Microsoft is no saint. They are a fierce 
competitor. Yet I believe an America with Microsoft is better than 
one without. If we are not careful the next Microsoft may end up 
being in a foreign country where we do not benefit nearly as much as 
having it in out own backyard.
    Please get this issue behind us and move on. . .
    Thank you for your time.
    John Grubb
    8116 Pecan Ridge Drive
    North Richland Hills, TX 76180


From: Susan Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Regarding legal settlement Microsoft/DOJ
    I believe that the lawsuit was very unecessary, considering 
other very large companies who have of late become conglomerates. 
Time Warner to name a high profile situation. Then we have the oil 
companies, and the supermarkets and the pharmaceutical companies, 
etc. There are others as well. I feel this was a rather selective 
law suit and I certainly feel Microsoft has been reasonable and 
responsive enough. For heavens sake settle this!. It is the American 
way to compete and create, therefore excell. I am astounded that 
this even has occured, and yes I am aware of the circumstances and 
this is my opinion. wonder what
    DOJ would do to Henry Ford today??
    Susan Griffin
    19407 Turtle Ridge Lane
    Northridge, CA. 91326


From: Terry Elder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement between DOJ and Microsoft. I use 
Microsoft products because they are good. I chose them. I was not 
coerced in any way. When I began using a computer, I did not use 
Microsoft products, but after Windows 3.1 came out, I moved and 
gradually used more and more Microsoft products. I certainly don't 
want to see them broken up. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is a 
great success story and should not be hounded. There are a few 
zealots who can't compete, so they use taxpayer money to try to 
destroy Microsoft with the law. Some of Microsoft's business 
practices probably do need to be modified, and so I agree with the 
    Franklin Terry Elder
    8168 Erin Street
    Juneau, AK 99801


From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    In my opinion, and the opinion of everyone I know, Microsoft 
should have never been sued. They provide amazing software that has 
made my life immensely more successful and rich. Now that a 
settlement has been worked out, I feel it should be accepted as 
written and the matter should be put behind us.
    Joseph M. Shikany, Seattle WA


From: BETTYBOBS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not prolong a settlement of the Microsoft case. It is 
in the best interests of Microsoft shareholders to end the case as 
soon as possible.


From: Mike Eddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done good more for individuals and the US economy 
than any other company in this decade. Penalizing them will only 
hurt customers and benefit some select competitors. Leave Microsoft 
    Mike Eddy


From: Vlad Mayzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    Leave them alone! They (Microsoft) do a great job and do much 
more good than harm to me, the consumer. Actually, what harm? 
Constantly pushing the industry to the progress? If other suckers 
can not do any better job, they manipulate the government forcing it 
to dig dirt pretending that it is on behalf of the consumers, but in 
reality to make the government to fight for them instead of 
improving their own technology. Of course it is easier and *free* 
but at taxpayer's and consumer's expense.
    If government really wants to help the consumers--fine, HELP any 
of Microsoft's competitors to make their technology BETTER and help 
them RISE to the Microsoft's level, but do not DESTROY Microsoft's 
success forcing it to FALL to the competitor's level, otherwise you 
will get the same kind of results as communists used to get using 
the same approach!
    Thank you for your time.
    Best regards,
    Vlad Mayzel.
    Smart Technologies,


From: Dbjroberts@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:34am


From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice:
    I am completely in favor of the settlement reached with 
Microsoft. I believe that this Microsoft settlement is in the public 
interest. I do not support further litigation on the Microsoft 
Antitrust case.

[[Page 24957]]

    Robert Longariello
    Taxpayer and Citizen
    Laguna Niguel, California


From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a consumer I have used computers for sixteen years now. I 
have a computer network setup between my shop, my home, our patio 
area and another house on the property. I harbor no doubt that I am 
not the usual consumer in this respect. I have been very happy 
however to be able to do this networking without having to purchase 
additional software, or to have found the process technically 
intimidating. I have found the inclusion of such items as 
networking, CD playing, mpeg viewing, Internet browsing, e-mail, 
picture viewing and such to be innovation at its best. I have 
purchased programs written by others that allow greater graphics 
capabilities, engineering capabilities and so forth. Essentially 
these programs run flawlessly for me in the MS Windows environment.
    I have in older versions of MS Windows purchased upgrades, one 
for instance was from Real Networks in Seattle, I think they are a 
part of this case also, they offered a free downloadable upgrade. 
What a dirty trick, as soon as I had it they wanted me to buy the 
full functional upgrade, and their newly installed software kept 
activating my firewall software with its attempts to report back to 
Real Networks what features I was making use of in their program 
without my knowledge. This is pretty much akin to planting a Trojan 
horse program and I think the practice stinks. I used their 
uninstall routine and it removed most but not all of their code, I 
still trap messages with it uninstalled trying to ``phone home.'' I 
have not had that problem with Microsoft; in fact Microsoft's 
collection of personal information is entirely upfront and with 
clear explanations.
    Across the same years I worked for Diebold Inc. and spent a 
great deal of time using the IBM operating system OS2. In those 
years IBM clearly attempted to capture a larger portion of the 
desktop PC software marked and they had promotions to that end. 
Diebold used OS2 as the OS on many computer systems, and nearly all 
of their ATM machines. Diebold regarded me during my employment with 
them up until my retirement last year at age 51 as a Fast Track 
Engineer. I got to solve the problems our field technicians were 
stumped on. We had plenty of problems; Windows was not nearly as 
cumbersome, or intolerant as OS2. To amplify the difference further 
between OS2 and Windows, IBM and Diebold were business partners; we 
had special access to IBM engineers to resolve problems. During this 
time I purchased OS2 for a computer at home and attempted to install 
it, even with ``inside'' help, the IBM engineers could not make it 
operate on the hardware I wanted to install it on. I had in fact 
purchased a new 486 system just to play with OS2 on, finally they 
told me all we can recommend is that you buy some new hardware that 
is on our supported list. That was it, I still have a box full of 
OS2 sitting here, and anytime someone wines about Windows I offer it 
to him or her.
    Clearly, most persons have never had to put up with anything 
like what I described above, but I want you to consider with the 
time and talent that IBM has, why couldn't they displace Microsoft. 
I will suggest that the market place chose the best software, and I 
will further suggest that in comparison to what is available the 
only choice for me will be Windows. Diebold Inc, was in the process 
of dropping OS2 for Windows at the time of my retirement. The 
reasons for this boiled down to IBM's failure to put innovations 
into their operating system fast enough for the market place. We 
were connecting ATMs into TCP/IP networks and VPNs, as a result of 
telnet sessions our customers are downloading streaming video and 
audio to our newer products. All of this is just a colossal pain 
because support for these advanced features is just too rudimentary 
in OS2, even though it comes from the granddad of computer giants.
    The enormity of gain to productivity and to our economy during 
the nineties was clearly connected to the computer industry. It is 
also clearly evident that the axe that cut the juggler was the U.S. 
vs. Microsoft, assisted by Judge Jackson. I can't help but feel that 
more innuendo and misconceptions were furthered during that time 
than at any other.
    Microsoft may have business practices that need attention, but 
if the government restricts them in writing software innovation will 
collapse. If the support utilities that are included in Windows 
currently had to be purchased separately and worse yet, from other 
companies, I would not have networked, I probably would not have 
bought at least three of the computers that I currently have, and a 
lot of other consumers would have held back as well. I get a lot for 
my money with Microsoft products and it sounds like to me the 
government would like to see that value stopped. Upgrading software 
over the years has often meant buying new programs. Microsoft up 
until now has retained backwards compatibility with software wrote 
twenty years ago. Apple Computer with most upgrades of their 
operating system trash any legacy software.
    I would like to comment on Sun Microsystems, Scott McNeally has 
publicly stated he intends to litigate against Microsoft forever. I 
always thought threats belonged more to the terrorist than to a 
business, and might even be against the law. But you see, I can see 
why Scott gets so red faced all the time. With the improvements in 
Windows NT the electrical engineering software vendors were no 
longer locked into compiling their code for the Unix operating 
system. Scott built boxes that ran their own version of Unix up 
until this time (there are eight versions of Unix, not one is 
compatible with the other) and when the software tool people saw the 
possibilities in Windows NT and then Compaq and HP started selling 
NT boxes for $6,000 suddenly Scott's $30,000 Unix boxes were not in 
so much demand. Just imagine what that did for his blood pressure, 
its no wonder he gets so red faced when talking about Microsoft.
    Then there is Oracle's Larry no doubt would like to keep 
Microsoft out of the data base arena as well. Microsoft in practice 
takes a product that is way to complex, and costly, and builds a 
version that anyone can use, without factory engineers help, and 
makes it immensely popular by turning it into a commodity product at 
Staples and Wal-Mart. Lastly as I mentioned just before, there are 
eight versions of Unix no less. Software transportability between 
them is close to zilch. If the Unix people can do that to consumers 
it seems strange that Microsoft should have to bear a burden in 
maintaining compatibility for all these other leaches.
    Yours truly,
    John H. Johnston
    Drawer 149
    Boulder, MT 59632
    Fax 406-225-3946
    Phone 406-225-9137


From: Didier Maignan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The uncertainty is no good for Technology. The settlement is 
fair. Please consider the impact on the Worldwide economy, and 
accept the agreement already accepted by the 9 states and the 
federal goverment.
    Didier Maignan
    Chairman of ``interprojet''


From: Thomas Arthur Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should have never been prosecuted to begin with. It is 
not the business of government tell a legally operating business 
what it can and cannot do. It is necessary for the Justice 
Department to get out of the way, tell the states that ``object'' to 
the settlement to get over it, because it is done. If these states 
have so much time on their hand, that they can afford this case, 
then perhaps they are meccas we all should move to, because they 
have no crime!!!!!!!!!!


From: Richard Poorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: Give the public a break! Stop spending our tax money and 
settle this stupid extended legal action.
    I have felt, from day one, that Microsoft have conducting some 
undesirable sale practices. But, where was our government watch 
dogs. I'll tell you, they were sleeping at the switch. The public 
used to be protected from product loss leaders which are used to get 
high profit items in front of the unsuspecting consumer. This is 
about all Microsoft was doing. When their competition was taking a 
licking, they complained to Big Uncle. Now, Big Uncle wants to show 
off his

[[Page 24958]]

power and destroy Microsoft. Get real, Microsoft is a fine company, 
has brought great prosperity to America. Give them a minor fine and 
get on down the road to a strong economy. Microsoft lead us in the 
past to great things and will again. I bought 300 shares of 
Microsoft in the middle of this mess because I had confidence that 
Big Uncle would do the right thing. Tell me you will. Give Microsoft 
a minor fine, turn they loose to doing great things for the consumer 
again. Please stop this crazy loss leader practice that is going 
full force today. The dumb public is getting kicked in the ass. 
Banks give away credit cards at low interest rates, just to hook the 
public later. Auto companies sell with zero interest just to hook us 
later when we pay for the over priced cars. My stores have these 
give away items to get me in the store so they can soak me on some 
items that are hard to check. There are laws again this practice but 
Big Uncle just lets it go on. Stop this practice of selling products 
at one price to some consumers and another price to others.
    Get our economy going again!
    Richard Poorman
    2395 Pine Lake Trail
    Arab, AL 35016


From: DonmesswithTX@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In reference to Microsoft and the litigation, I feel that 
Microsoft has been very cooperative, not to mention that there is no 
other competitor that even comes close to the Microsoft products!
    Any further litigation is unjust!
    Lindsey Ford
    Southern Critters Sales and Marketing LLC


From: OCP2332@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:12am
Subject: lawsuit
    i use microsoft and feel they have done nothing wrong. i can use 
any system and change at any time....to penalize a company for 
advancements is the wrong message to send to start ups.


From: Ray Vardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42am
Subject: Settle
    Let Microsoft conduct its business fairly and without the 
federal govt. involvement!!
    Happy Trails!! (:) Anne


From: Adam Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To anyone who anyone who may read this, There is an extremely 
gross misunderstanding as to how Microsoft works. It would be much 
more effective for a high level government official to DROP all 
legal action and just ask Microsoft to create a more competitive 
environment. This is the TRUTH!!! Simple and quick. A judgment like 
this would turn the economy around in a day. Microsoft would take 
the responisbilty seriously and would take a commanding role in 
turning things around. Microsoft WILL succeed in whatever direction 
they are pointed in so point them at the common good.
    Adam Gates
    ahgates@hotmail.com or ahgates@yahoo.com
    Please feel free to contact me with any questions on my 


From: Ricardo Villar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's about time the government (DOJ) stops harassing Microsoft. 
Isn't it enough the harassment they have from their competition? 
It's a tough world out there, when you don't have the privileges of 
being a public servant. Microsoft is responsible for thousand of 
jobs in the States and worldwide. Microsoft made computing 
accessible to everyone, at a time when Motorola, Apple, Netscape and 
others were selling their products to a select group of people who 
could afford their prices and conditions. How can you criticize 
Microsoft for their policies, when the government policies are, some 
times, even dirtier and deadly?
    Stop this case at once and dedicate all your efforts in 
protecting the States from the internal and external enemies, not 
from people who want to make America big.
    Ricardo Villar


From: Stanley Shoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's finally get this case behind us. The proposed terms are 


From: Risto Raitio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:02am
Subject: Justice and free market economy or Microsoft socialism 
(very briefly!)
    Helsinki, January 3, 2002
    Dear Justice Officer,
    I am a (retired ) theoretical physicist who has worked with 
computers for 30 years, the last ten years in an international 
software company. I've learned American way of life as a visiting 
scientist at Stanford University in 1974-76.
    May I call your attention to the following points: first quoting 
Mr. Ganesh Prasad of Sidney, Australia
    --``Microsoft has also had secret agreements with OEMs that 
prevent them from offering consumers the choice of which operating 
system to boot when they start up their computers.''
    --``Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result of these 
and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.''
    --``It is being argued that in the current difficult economic 
climate, Microsoft should not be broken up or otherwise punished, 
because that will in turn affect the rest of the economy (through a 
fall in the stockmarket index, a delay in the recovery of hardware 
sales, more unemployment and hardship, etc.). On the contrary, the 
lessons of Economics are that monopolies are always bad. They reduce 
efficiency, innovation and economic activity. In other words, 
Microsoft's monopoly has already affected the economy adversely.''
    Microsoft speaks often of their innovations. Most educated 
people consider Microsoft rather an implementor of other companies' 
innovations. For example, the graphical user interface and the 
spreadsheet software Excel. Another example, Microsoft realised the 
importance of the Internet quite late. Microsoft's unstable 
operating systems (all of them before Windows 2000), proprietary 
software and binary file formats have caused high and unnecessary 
expenses for Microsoft software user organisations. Of course, 
Microsoft claims the opposite. But I'm not against Microsoft, I'm 
only against illegal business methods. In fact, a decent kind of 
Microsoft is needed! The bottom line is whether the United States 
Justice system wants to maintain the free market economy or open the 
door to centrally controlled sectors of economy, which are known to 
fail ultimately.
    Risto Raitio, PhD
    Espoo, Finland


From: Larry Ownbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi, how are ya?
    The simple fact is that free enterprise is what made USA the 
great nation that it is or should I say was? Let me ask a simple 
question; because Midas makes mufflers does that mean that Ford 
cannot make mufflers? Because Netscape makes a browser should 
Microsoft be disallowed? Smaller software companies have made a 
choice to make programs that rely on Microsoft's operating system. 
As far as I know there is no rule or law that says that they cannot 
develop their own operating system and programs to run under them.
    Netscape chose to make a browser that runs under Microsoft's 
operating system. Why in the name of hell should that mean that 
Microsoft cannot include the browser that they make as a part of 
their operating system. Nowhere in that effort did Microsoft in any 
way do anything that would prevent anybody from getting and using 
any browser they choose. If the other guy wants to compete they need 
to ``make a better whistle''. If they cannot ``make a better 
whistle'' then maybe they should consider another line of work!
    Microsoft has done some great things for this country and it's 
people, I really don't think they should be punished for it. If you 
ask me the whole litigation was just done to make a bunch of nearly 
worthless lawyers rich at the consumer's expense. For every

[[Page 24959]]

good thing that anybody find in what lawyers do I can guarantee 
there are at least 25 bad things. Their sole existence is based on 
the ill fate and sufferings of others. Lawyers will destroy this 
    Thank you,
    Larry Ownbey


From: K Orum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2002
    United States Dept of Justice
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in behalf of Microsoft. I don't think there is any 
reason to break up a company that has supplied us with good products 
and good service since personal computing began. I have never felt 
``victimized'' or limited by any of the Microsoft applications. I 
see AOL/Time Warner and your old friend AT&T as much bigger 
problems/threats to the public. I am a subscriber of both of these 
services and feel victimized by their underhanded billing methods 
and misrepresented services.
    I am a shareholder of all three so I don't give this opinion 
carelessly or unfairly.
    Karen E. Orum


From: tom holzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am quite pleased the case with Microsoft has been settled. In 
my opinion it should never have been brought to begin with. 
Microsoft's competitors in the marketplace were simply using 
government intervention as an attempt to block Microsoft's superior 
marketing skills and products. I am neither connected with Microsoft 
nor am I connected with any other software or hardware company. I 
use Microsoft operating system software on PC's as well as Apple 
operating system software on their machines. I am simply a home 
consumer who feels this whole episode is simply another example of 
politically motivated government waste excess. As a consumer I feel 
the whole prosecution of the government case against Microsoft has 
been a huge waste of time and money. The consumer has never had more 
inexpensive choices for home computing than under the current/
previous market environment. Please go away and leave these people 
alone to innovate and develop new useful products for consumers! If 
you want to do something really useful for me as a consumer you 
should investigate why I can't get connected to the internet at high 
speeds because the last two miles of wire to my house is under 
monopoly control by Ameritech/SBC. This behemoth is clearly blocking 
other companies from selling me true high-speed DSL access.
    This is corruption on a huge scale!


From: Ralph Baur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
    the proposed settlement is reasonable and fair. I totally agree 
that the settlement is good for the customers, the industry and 
morover it means an important signal to the worlds economy. In my 
opinion the settlement is of public interest and I respectfully ask 
the district court to honor this in its fourthcoming decision.
    Best Regards,
    R. Baur


From: Chris Boonham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to take the opportunity to record my opinion.
    I believe that the settlement between Microsoft and the federal 
government/nine states, is tough on Microsoft, but is fair to the 
Consumers and the IT industry as a whole. It is in the interests of 
the everyone, including the US economy, for this settlement to 
proceed swiftly to it's final conclusion.
    Thank you.
    Chris Boonham


From: DivaLibraE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, do not this situation continue. I believe an end should 
be put to this, and that the present settlement agreement be let 
stand with a guarantee that this settlement stand. Continuing to 
prolong action against Microsoft will not be in the public/consumers 
insterest. This entire action has hurt our economy, industry and the 
American citizen. In my opinion, the continuation of this case over 
so many months was caused mainly by our pre-Bush government and 
    I think that when the public learns that Microsoft if no longer 
in litagation, the response of business and citizens will react with 
a positive response.
    Thank you...........LillianEibert


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08am
Subject: Settlement
    If you don't leave our corporations alone they will be forced 
out to overseas countries and more of our jobs will be sent over 
    Jack E. Purser Sr.
    A Voter
    Jack Purser Sr.


From: MadRGO@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe strongly that it is time to settle the Microsoft 
lawsuit and move on. The country is in a recession and it is not 
prudent to stifle innovation on one of our home-grown businesses. 
Microsoft is a business that creates jobs and is a good citizen. The 
settlement is fair and the nine states should be made to accept 
that. Their interests are merely self-serving.
    Madison McCall
    Dorothy McCall, Charlottesville, Virginia


From: cauvel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to add my voice to the many people asking you 
to stop this useless waste of public money and resources. The 
continuation of this legal battle can have no benefit to anyone in 
the public sector. You are suing a company for bundling its 
products, and saying you are doing it for the benefit of the people. 
Can I please have someone explain to me how it is going to benefit 
me to have to pay for each seperate piece of my operating system for 
my computer? So, for one price I have recieved everything I need to 
operate my computer and to go online, it works perfectly together, I 
dont have conflicts to deal with in case I buy the wrong thing, and 
most importantly I GOT IT ALL FOR ONE PRICE! I think that this case 
to begin with was baseless harrassment from the government, and with 
everything I have read about it, I still believe that is true. I 
think that we need to go ahead and settle this and move on. And in 
closing, I would just like to mention... AOL/TIME WARNER. Lets apply 
the same rules to all corporations, regardless of who the major 
stockholders are.


From: RANDVIC@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:22am
    End your legal attacks on Microsoft. Accept Microsoft's offer. 
The government legal attacks on Microsoft are simply yet again 
attempts to penelize those who are successful, while at the same 
time rewarding those who are not. That is backwards.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Tunney Act. I also support reducing the period of 
copyright protection of computer software (for everyone, not just 
Microsoft), with an option for extension if the copyright holder 
places source code into escrow. We simply must encourage both 
innovation and reuse.
    David DeBrota


From: Ron Graves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:24am
Subject: microsoft case
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly object to the protracted suits against Microsoft. As 
a user I feel that

[[Page 24960]]

Microsoft has given me the best possible platform on which to run my 
computer. All other solutions (Linux) appear like solutions looking 
around for a problem--try to install it as opposed to Windows. As a 
former computer programmer, I can appreciate the complexity and work 
that went in to Windows development. Finally, as a shareholder I 
feel that I and the other shareholders have been punished enough 
with the devaluation of the shares since this case first got major 
publicity. Enough is enough and the state Attorneys General should 
stop as well. Let's get on with the business of making Windows 
better and not having a company look over its shoulders all the 
    Ron Graves


From: Lois Tilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice Representative,
    I believe the settlement that has been proposed for Microsoft is 
fair and equitable. I support it going forward. Also, I think it 
would further endanger our weakened economy to spend precious time, 
energy and focus on reopening issues that have already been fairly 
    Please let me know if you have any questions.
    Lois Tilles


From: Dan Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that Microsoft is a innovative company and the 
envy of most of their competitiors. Many of the entities opposed to 
the proposed settlement are either Microsoft competitors, have a 
financial stake in the outcome, or simply do not like any successful 
corporation. Our country has already spent way too many resources on 
this lawsuit which in my opinion is actually hurting the consumer 
and our nation's economy by stifling innovation. If Microsoft ever 
truly harms the consumer, the market will speak. I urge the DoJ to 
accept the proposed settlement and allow (and even encourage) 
technical innovation to once again flourish.
    Dan Cannon


From: Edward W. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please set this case aside. The settlement reached with the 
government should be good enough. Left Microsoft get back to the 
business of writing computer computer programs.


From: Rex Plent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm a Microsoft share holder and I belive that Microsoft has 
been good for this country and the world! I believe that the company 
was unfairly attacked and that this whole affair should be put to 
rest. Microsoft has been good to me and their products are great. 
Let's get on with it! The world has more important things to be 
concerned about.


From: NicSca@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to end this injustice perpetrated by a few competitors 
who simply cry foul because they can't defeat Microsoft on the 
playing field using the normal rules of the game. I am one American 
who truly believes that Microsoft did not violate any laws of this 
great country. Being a fiercely competitive and relentlessly 
intimidating player in the great economic arena of today's world is 
correct, necessary, and JUSTIFIED!
    Microsoft broke no laws. Let us end this travesty now!


From: hterhoeve@gmstl.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Comments regarding proposed settlement.
    Proposed settlement is too severe to Microsoft.


From: Marge Seybert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Show me an American made television set.
    Shanley J. Seybert


From: CTerry@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the gov't to move on and stop hindering the 
productivity and creativity of the software company that single-
handedly stopped the maddness of the duplicity of operating systems 
(software companies had to re-write the old code just to make it 
available on the different systems instead of innovating), stopped 
the maddness of the duplicity of office software products that all 
worked differently, wouldn't talk to each other and made computers 
hard to work with and limited people to working effectively from 
product to product. Oh...by the way, do you remember the price of 
Lotus 123, which didn't have a new upgrade (1a to 2 and 2.1) for 3 
years.... $395. We now get in MS Office Excel, Word, Powerpoint, 
Outlook and Access for less! Quit it. They have innovated, made the 
product available to everyone all for a significantly less price. Go 
chase some terrorists!
    Charles W. Terry
    13201 Dodie Dr.
    Darnestown, MD 20878


From: vze27x6e@verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle this suit as soon as possible. It is an unjust 
suit to begin with. Microsofr is only guilty of being successful. 
The states attorneys general and the other companies that are suing 
are only being opportunistic. Micosoft is a great company and good 
for our nation.


From: Snowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I beleave that Microsoft and the American public have and are 
tired of this action. I also beleave that Microsoft is one of the 
fue companys that has a direct influence on our economy, if this 
sort of action is continued the recovery of our economy will be 
    Thank you for your time in this grave acxt of misderected 
    Glenn Eugene; Frantz
    Copyright Notice: All rights reserved re common-law copyright of 
    EUGENE FRANTZ(C)-as well as any and all derivatives and 
variations in the spelling of said trade-name/trade-mark-
Copyright(C) 1969 by Glenn Eugene; Frantz. Said trade-name/trade-
    GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), may neither be used, nor reproduced, 
neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without 
the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Glenn 
Eugene; Frantz as signified by the red-ink signature of Glenn 
Eugene; Frantz, hereinafter ``Secured Party.''
    Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives 
consent for any unauthorized use of GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), and all 
such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
    Unauthorized User(s):
    (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in, and a distress 
warrant and lien against, User's property and interest in property 
in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each trade-name/trade-
mark used, per each occurrence of use, plus triple damages, plus 
costs for each such use, as well as for each and every use of any 
and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of GLENN EUGENE 
    (2) authenticates a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor 
and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party and User pledges all of 
User's property and interest in property as collateral for securing 
User's contractual obligation;
    (3) authenticates a UCC Financing Statement wherein User is 
debtor and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party;
    (4) consents and agrees that said Financing Statement is a 
continuing financing statement, authorizing Secured Party's filing 
of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured 
Party's perfected security interest in all of User's property and

[[Page 24961]]

rights in property pledged as collateral in the aforementioned 
Security Agreement, until User's contractual obligation theretofore 
incurred has been fully satisfied;
    (5) authorizes the filing of the aforementioned UCC Financing 
Statement and Security Agreement in the UCC filing office by Secured 
    (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings referenced 
in paragraph ``(5{time} '' above are not, and may not be considered, 
bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; 
    (7) waives all defenses.
    Record Owner: Glenn Eugene; Frantz, Autograph Common Law 
Copyright(C) 1969.


From: Bob Sammons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Uncle Sam,
    Please settle this Microsoft fiasco ASAP. September 11th has 
been a drop in the bucket compared to what this government debacle 
has done to the economy.
    Bob Sammons
    2000 Sammons Davis Ct
    Arlington, Texas 76015


From: D. G. Cragar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Get this settled without further litigation.
    D. G. CRAGAR
    P.O. BOX 142
    ADONA, AR 72001-0142


From: Jamesjmorgan@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    It seems appropriate that the DOJ finalize the settlement 
agreement at this time.
    I found it hard to comprehend the concept that Microsoft stifled 
competition when they actually were an incubator and catalyst for 
the most concentrated intellectual development in history. Sour 
grapes has cost all of us too much time and money. Get on with the 
settlement and let's get back to more important issues.
    James J. Morgan
    Paradise Valley, AZ.


From: rufuswon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of the proposed settlement and wish to see it 
    Jeff Ballard


From: James R. Wright Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe your proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust action is fair and equitable. Your propsal will continue 
to allow research and development of new products and technoligies 
by the best and brightest in the industry.
    I also believe any further restrictions would significantly 
inhibit future advances in technical development areas if large 
vendors like Microsoft is restricted, just so it will be preceived 
``fair'' for other developers to enter the market. Regardless of the 
software developers size if their products are actually good they 
will find a place in the market. After all didn't Microsoft succeed 
in a market dominated by IBM when it first started?
    I don't remember the Justice Department going after IBM to level 
the playing field for Microsoft.
    The unique thing about private enterprise is consumers do have 
brains and they will do what's best for themselves regardless of 
what is perceived a ``politically correct.''
    I hope you will stick with your original decision and allow the 
consumers like me determine what is good and what is bad in the 
market place, not the courts. Let's put an end to this type of 
corporate harassments once and for all!
    James R. Wright Sr.
    313 East Appleby Avenue
    Cambridge, Maryland 21613


From: Colleen Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:28am
Subject: Memory !!!
    This whole damn thing with Microsoft is stupid ! Way back when 
computers were just getting started into home desktops Apple came 
out with their OS and wouldn't license or allow anyone to use their 
system. Monopoly ?? Several other systems were developed for the IBM 
clones, Microsofts DOS among them. Why did Microsoft become the 
system in use ?? For the reasons of 1 that it was reasonably user 
friendly and 2 mainly it was available to the whole market. In days 
gone by when a person developed something that the buying public 
wanted he could make a profit and build a business. Now that common 
sense has taken a back seat to Lawyerize if a person is successful 
he gets sued. Pure male bovine fecal material.
    I'm a retired Los Angeles City fireman and have seen bureaucracy 
in action big time. The whole message of this deal and the other 
many ``do gooder'' issues will do nothing but stifle any incentive 
of the people that have ambitions other than being a happy hamburger 
    Cordially and sincerely. Howard L Chapman


From: BAADBBOY@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:31am
Subject: Tunney Act
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please, enough already with hassling Microsoft and Bill Gates! 
Bill Gates has done a lot of good for our country with his company 
Microsoft! Stop the nonsense and leave the good company and Bill 
Gates along already! Just because a few of our government elected 
officials are against Microsoft and Bill Gates because of the 
brilliant man he is and because he has founded one of the best 
companies in the world gives our government NO right to continue to 
harass him!
    I say to our government ENOUGH ALREADY! Spend our tax dollars on 
more important issues in this country, like coming up with a way 
    Mary Chance
    20515 East Country Club Drive
    Apt. #2243
    Aventura, Fla


From: Robert Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:37am
Subject: microsoft settlemant
    i think it was crazy to go after microsoft in the first place. 
look at what the market has done because of it !. get off their 
back, please


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:43am
Subject: pro-microsoft
    i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too 
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine 
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l 
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the 
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft 
alone. stan h.


From: NaplesMac@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:45am
Subject: Subj: Microsoft settlement
    To whom this email concerns;
    I do believe that the settlement that has already been agreed 
upon between Microsoft and the US Government/States, I believe it to 
be fair for all parties concerned. Most of all this settlement is in 
the best interest of the American public and the country as a whole. 
I am in favor of the courts settling this case to allow our country 
to get on with the recovery that is so badly needed. I see no 
further litigation's needed. It is time that we as a country get 
this case behind us and to go on with the more important issues 
facing the nation and the economy.
    Thank you so much for taking the time to read my comments 
dealing with the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Mr. William MacKenzie


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: STAN HELENIAK hetstan@oxford.net>

[[Page 24962]]

To: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: pro-microsoft
    i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too 
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine 
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l 
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the 
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft 
alone. stan h.


From: Pajoarnold@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Get done with this! This is way too long and too expensive to 
continue. Had Microsoft been issuing product at an exorbitant rate 
then you have cause to worry. Microsoft is and has been attacked 
because they got there first! I thought that this was the way it 
worked in the US, at least it did for my forty years in business.
    John Arnold
    Little River, SC 29566


From: Alkay99@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:56am
Subject: Settlement
    It's time to end this ridiculous lawsuit against one of 
America's finest corporations.
    From what I read in the media, Microsoft's offer is more than 
fair. This corporation has made the U.S. the leader in computer 
sciences, has added to the security of the country, and has done 
nothing to be ashamed of.
    Time to end this persecution of a fine corporation!
    Al Kay, Orlando, Fl


From: Ed Schone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a Microsoft consumer and I use both IBM compatible and 
Macintosh computers. I use Microsoft software on both types of 
computers. Why--because it provides the most advanced features at 
prices I can afford. Even on the Macintosh, where there is very 
little Microsoft software available compared to the IBM compatible 
world, when I had the choice, I've bought Microsoft (or downloaded 
free) over the other venders. You guys have done enough. Just let 
agreed decision carry on and let Microsoft continue to develop 
innovative software products.
    Ed Schone


From: Harvey Waxman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What good does it do to protest? Microsoft owns the operating 
system world. Why else would a cumbersome, complex, frustrating and, 
generally acknowledged to be, inferior operating system prevail? 
Could it be that Mr. Gates had the vision to understand that once 
his DOS was installed on the vast majority of computers in homes, 
courtesy of his arrangement with IBM, he could do anything he wanted 
without the benefit of competition?
    There is no competition because of stupid and naive decisions 
made by Apple computer. But the fact is that there is no 
    Harvey Waxman D.M.D.
    73 Wright Lane
    Wickford, RI 02852-5846


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Re: Settlement
    I am writing to your to urge you to approve the settlement with 
Microsoft. I am a user of Microsoft products and have felt all 
through this court case that I have purchased a good product at a 
fair price. Jack Basham ``One of the penalties for refusing to 
participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your 


From: James MacLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01am
    Please do not punish Microsoft beyond the current negotiated 
settlement. Business is about competition which include strategies 
and tactics that may not seem fair to people who are not in 
    This entirely DEMOCRAT suit has damaged our economy. Don't make 
it any worse.
    Thank you,
    James A MacLaughlin
    1633 Eton Way
    Crofton, MD 21114


From: Vern Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to thank you for settling with Microsoft. Please 
don't let all those whiney competitors dictate what they think is 
right for the consumer and the economy when they are really only 
concerned about themselves. Your settlement with Microsoft IS the 
right thing for consumers and the economy.
    Vernon A. Scoggins
    13937 Dovehunt Place
    Charlotte, NC 28273


From: Ruth Pennock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case. Thank you.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:03am
    After years of debate, argument, charge and counter charge, 
conflict, and inflammatory unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing, a 
settlement has been achieved between the government and Microsoft. 
It is my opinion that the energy and resources, both human and 
capital, that have been exhausted during this period went way beyond 
what was required to protect consumers from the abuses of market 
    The settlement achieved is fair. The competitive model of 
commerce in the most advanced and admired economy in the world has 
been preserved. Free market competition incents innovation and 
growth, and ultimately advances the quality of life for all.
    I urge you to accept this settlement and reaffirm the character 
of commerce in the U.S.
    L. Brian Holland
    PO Box 353
    13091 Kibler Road
    Greensboro, MD 21639


From: bill shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this ridiculous case ASAP!!!!


From: Alice Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that it is essential to our country and our economy that 
the Microsoft case be settled for once and all; I hope the most 
recent settlement will be quickly approved and initiated.
    Alice Allen


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why punish a company that has competed fairly on a head to head 
    Why punish a company that has kept prices ``LOW'' not high?
    Why punish a company that has done so very much for the high 
tech industry, this country and the world?
    Why punish a company for doing such a good job?
    Doesn't punishing a company for doing well send the wrong 
message to our children, friends and family?
    Thank you.
    Ken Nelson


From: Robert P. Blaisdell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative, Marzen Group 
LLC is a small

[[Page 24963]]

business that integrates software and provides secure solutions for 
Department of Defense (DOD), as well as our commercial customers. 
Our Corporate headquarters is located in New Hampshire and we also 
have a location in Alabama. Our expertise includes supporting and 
securing both the Windows-based and UNIX platforms, software 
development, and providing turnkey hardware/software solutions to 
our various customers. Our customer's requirements are split on a 
platform basis as follows: 85% demand for Windows and 15% for UNIX/
    (By the way, it has been our experience that the UNIX space 
within DOD is controlled by Sun Microsoft Systems Solaris at about 
92%. Within our commercial UNIX space, it has been our experience 
that the market share for Sun Microsoft Systems appears to be the 
same. We have also seen that the DOD router space is controlled by 
CISCO to the tune of about 96%. If market share is the key indicator 
there are lots of other antitrust targets depending how you define 
the market space.)
    We have followed the case against Microsoft and have reviewed 
the DOJ settlement. We agree with Microsoft that the settlement is 
fair and preserves the ability of our company to continue compete in 
the software integration and security marketplace, while preserving 
Microsoft's right to be innovative with their products. Since the 
case began, the software industry has continued to become more 
competitive place, and we believe this will continue especially 
during these economic down turn. The fact there are ten times more 
software developers choosing to use the Microsoft economic model and 
tools, should not be worrisome to DOJ. This means that many third 
party companies, like my company, are betting their futures using 
the development platform framework provided by Microsoft, will work 
correctly with that framework. It means many jobs for our citizens 
and it allows customers to obtain the best software solutions made 
in the world. If each software company had to develop our own 
framework, much like the current state of UNIX/Linux, the cost and 
time to market of products that are needed would be significantly 
higher. In some cases this would force us to scrap the project, thus 
leaving our customers with inferior solutions.
    The United States is known for its innovative capabilities 
within the software arena. Microsoft is an important partner in this 
space as well as other companies like Oracle, Sun and Red Hat. 
Microsoft has significantly invested in Standards Groups, which 
benefits all software developers, regardless of their O/S 
affiliation. Microsoft's large scale support of the open standards 
committees (IETF, UPNP, W3, to name just a few) has helped them to 
become even a better corporate citizen within the software industry. 
The restrictions placed on Microsoft by your agreement will also 
allow us to move past the period of uncertainty which has plagued 
many companies for several years. As a company president, I can tell 
you that waiting for this legal case to be settled, has had a 
significantly impacted our strategic planning model for the past 
couple of years. With the case settled, it will allow companies like 
ours, to forge ahead with strategic plan, certain that we they are 
based on a development framework that is understood and will be 
stable for the foreseeable future.
    The settlement DOJ proposed, and that was accepted by Microsoft, 
is fair and we believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of 
the US. I urge DOJ to stay the course with the settlement as 
proposed, to remove the cloud of uncertainty over software 
integration and third party development plans and to move forward. 
Let get on with the business of providing innovative solutions to 
our citizens!
    Bob Blaisdell--President
    M?rzen Group LLC
    35 Pine Street Ext.
    Millyard Technology Park
    Nashua, NH 03060-3213
    Corporate: 603.889.9522 Mobile: 603.860.8200
    Fax 603.889.9567 rpb@marzen.com
    CC:mailbox@gregg. senate.gov@inetgw, opinion@smith.sena. . .


From: Punto Info
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:15am
Subject: Domini Prestigiosi
    ACQUISTA un di questi 5 autorevoli domini:
    E avrai da subito un grande numero di visitatori, senza contare 
il prestigio che la tua azienda ne trarrebbe.
    Per informazioni: http://www.toprete.com/domain.htm


From: Jmmenoud@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft
    The settlement reached with the 9 states is a big step in the 
right direction. I find it ridiculous that American companies fight 
each others while foreign companies competing in the same field try 
to fill the gap. Microsoft is a pioneer and it is a shame that other 
companies which could not catch up attempt to penalize Microsoft. 
Who are these people who do not accept the rules of free market ? 
and what are the benefits for US companies to continue this legal 
war ? Abroad people are laughing when they see the millions of 
dollars spent on this purely legal fees. ... What is the finality ? 
Certain CEO of losing companies should swallow their ego and accept 
the ruling. ...
    I expect the DOJ do bring an end to this case against one of the 
biggest pride of the USA.
    Jean-Michel Menoud


From: njcolonna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:20am
    SINCERELY, NORM COLONNA 440 237 4581


From: LotusInn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:28am
Subject: We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our 
success as a company and personally. We t
    We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our 
success as a company and personally. We think that Microsoft has had 
a tremendous benefit on our nation by enhancing people's 
    This keeps inflation down. We see no need for this unnecessary 
litigation. We realize that Microsoft's software and innovation has 
made our life better.


From: philip.lindsey@na. biomerieux. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please let it be known as part of the Public Record that I am in 
favor of a full settlement of this case in favor of Microsoft. We 
have better things to do in this country than to penalize a 
successful organization that is a backbone of our economy. Please 
stop this madness.
    Philip M. Lindsey, C.P.M.
    bioMrieux, Inc.
    Hazelwood, MO


From: Mark E Fogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    It is now time to settle the Microsoft case. Microsoft is one of 
the leading companies in the tech field. You must realize that the 
companies fighting Microsoft have a vested interest in causing the 
company trouble. The states attorney generals still holding out are 
more interested in enhancing their political careers than anything 
else. Settlement of this case with the current solution is the best 
    Mark E. Fogg


From: Michele Acerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:31am
    Ladies or Gentlemen.
    I understand that the D.O.J. is accepting comments on the 
``Microsoft proposed settlement''.
    My opinion is that the proposed settlement is fair and that 
should be enforced. I believe that all the States should accept it 
and in fact

[[Page 24964]]

I believe that they should not have entered in the litigation since 
this was, if any, a federal offense and was already prosecuted by 
the D.O.J. Although undoubtedly there were abuses by Microsoft of 
their technological and commercial position, I believe that it is 
time to move on and that freedom of innovation has to be respected 
and protected.
    Michele Acerra


From: Robert Dreyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft.
    It seems that so called lidigation into the Microsoft law suit 
has become no more than an extortion on the part of a bunch of 
greedy people who use the excuse of ``were only thinking about whats 
best for the people''. I don't think any of the Attorney generals 
whether they be Federal of state have any other reason for the suit 
except its a place to shake a Co. down for the money All these law 
suits are just for the money be it greedy lawyers or state and 
federal offices. Get off microsofts back and let them go on about 
there business. It seems if a Co. has some smart people and is 
innovative we can't have that, we have to bring them down to our 
level. Thats the way people in government work any body with brain 
doesn't stand a chance there is no room in government for a thinker.
    Sam Spade


From: Joseph Maccaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:35am
Subject: complete the agreement
    We urge the DOJ to end the Microsoft case and implement the 
recent government-Microsoft agreement. It is time to direct DOJ 
energy to other critical matters.
    Mr & Mrs J. Maccaro
    154-61 22 Ave
    Whitestone NY 11357


From: Kenney, George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:38am
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the Microsoft settlement because the parties 
harmed by the business practices are not compensated by the proposed 
    1) Low income school district are not the customers who 
purchased Microsoft products. The proposal to only provide relief to 
low-income schools, as opposed to all schools is a Robin Hood feel 
good approach to the problem. As a consumer who has been required to 
purchase Microsoft products, both stand alone and pre-loaded by the 
manufacturers of the PC's I have purchased, my children do not go to 
low income schools and therefore will derive no benefit from the 
    2) Competitors of Microsoft will be further harmed by being 
excluded from selling products to the schools which will be flooded 
with Microsoft products as a result of the settlement. The damage to 
these competitors will actually increase as a result of this 
    I would like to see this settlement be rejected for the reasons 
mentioned above.
    George Kenney
    1304 Sequoia Rd
    Naperville, IL 60540
    Phone: + 630 541 8628
    Fax: + 630 541 8204
    george.kenney@ca.com mailto:george.kenney@ca.com>


From: Donna (038) Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To the DOJ. It is my opinion that you should end the battle with 
Microsoft and go forward with the settlement.
    Personally I believe the suit was wrong from the get go. We need 
more innovative companies like Microsoft. They make a good 
product,market it well, and make money doing it. This gives people 
jobs that provide the income to help stimulate the economy. When 
Microsoft raises their prices to help pay the settlement who gets 
hurt? Us the people your ``protecting'' that's who. Open and free 
competition is what drives a market, not the courts.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my views.
    Gary Chierici


From: Daviduk, Matthew
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: Comment
    If not for Microsoft, where would we be today? The settlement is 
fair. For the goodness of the technology world and the consumers out 
there, let it be settled.
    Is there going to be the same lawsuits against companies like 
    The software industry would self-destruct if Microsoft goes 
away. . . . But if I were Bill Gates, I would say ``Fine, you don't 
appreciate my contributions . . . then Good Bye''


From: Julsxm@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:42am
Subject: Settlement
    I think that it is a bunch of c------ for a company having to 
share with others who have been sitting on their duff what they have 
achieved with their efforts. If I were Bill Gates I'd tell them to 
go U know where.


From: Arnold(u)Agre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I as Microsoft investor and user have been concerned about 
antitrust suit against Microsoft for some time. While Microsoft has 
become more or less the standard for their operating system and 
personal computer software, they earned it by providing innovative 
products. I believe I as a consumer have benefited from what 
Microsoft has done over the years.
    The Department of Justice has spent millions of tax payer 
dollars over the years prosecuting a case that I as a consumer feel 
was unnecessary to begin with. Microsoft has spent millions of 
dollars defending themselves. This money could have been used for 
more R&D or made Microsoft more profitable which would have enhanced 
the value of the stock in my portfolio. I think it ridiculous to 
punish a company because they have been successful.
    The uncertainty caused my this litigation needs to stop. 
Microsoft has agreed to a settlement that I think goes far beyond 
what was required. I think it is in the public interest that the 
case be settled with the terms that have been agreed to by the DOJ 
and Microsoft.
    Arnold Agre
    8762 Gray Fox Dr.
    Evergreen, Co 80439


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Chu4021748@aol.com
To: piu@doj.ca.gov ; attorney.general@po.state.ct.us ; 
ag@oag.state.fl.us ; consumer@ag.state.ia.us ;
    GENERAL@ksag.org ; webmaster@ago.state.ma.us ; 
attorney.general@state.mn.us ; uag@att.state.ut.us ; 
consumer@wvnet.edu ; timb001@attglobal.net
    Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:11 PM
    Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    Watching MS behavior for years I do not favor a settlement as 
they have destro yed what once was a very competitive marketplace. 
The unethical behavior t hey have shown should not be rewarded with 
a slap on the wrist.
    Charlie May


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Dan Van Fleet'' danvanf@erinet.com>
To: piu@doj.ca.gov>; attorney.general@po.state.ct.us>; 
ag@oag.state.fl.us>; consumer@ag.state.ia.us>; GENERAL@ksag.org>; 
webmaster@ago.state.ma.us>; attorney.general@state.mn.us>; 
uag@att.state.ut.us>; consumer@wvnet.edu>; timb001@attglobal.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    I'm from Ohio, one of the states that wimped out on the 
Microsoft case. I stand and applaud you all for not stopping without 
a real fix. I use OS/2, Linux. Of course I'm forced to use Microsoft 
products in many

[[Page 24965]]

instances. I have noted that not only is OS/2 superior to all 
versions of Windows including XP, I believe that Microsoft used 
unfair monopolistic tactics to quash OS/2. (The psudo 32 bit 
extensions that Word required, which broke OS/2 in the early 90's 
would be one of them)
    I was very happy with Judge Jackson's understanding of the 
industry, it was the FIRST time in history that I thought a Judge 
had a clue about the IT industry. Depressingly, he let Microsoft get 
the best of him, (his temper had to have been raised due to the lies 
MS told in his court, which were proven to be lies in his court) and 
he spouted of when he shouldn't have.
    Anyway, Keep up the good work, stand your ground. BTW, I've also 
contacted Betty Montgomery (AG-Ohio) to express my displeasure with 
their actions.
    Dan Van Fleet
    Springfield, Ohio
    Standard disclaimer: My E-mail address is for communications for 
and between myself and the address list of this original e-mail 
only. It is not for sale, rent, trade, barter, or any other purpose. 
You have not right to give, sell, trade, or otherwise transmit it, 
without my consent.


From: David Storm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is crime to continue to let the Microsoft 
competitors that can't compete in the marketplace to continue to 
hound Microsoft in the courts. What has started as an argument over 
whether Microsoft could enhance their product by incorporating a 
browser, has degenerated into ``we don't like them because they are 
so successful, or so competitive, and therefore we must hamstring 
    I think it is fairly clear that Microsoft has sparked the 
current technological revolution. Remember it was just 8-10 years 
ago that we felt our technological economy would be surpassed by the 
Japanese. What has happened?. Obviously, without government 
inference in the marketplace, good old American ingenuity came 
through again. I believe I am getting a better product for less 
money because of Microsoft.
    Settle the case without killing Microsoft. As a consumer I don't 
want to have another ATT-like breakup.
    David Storm


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``John Losse'' jn--jdlosse@juno.com>
To: consumer@mail.wvnet.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement is not strict enough and does not 
limit Microsoft business practices. I believe that they should be 
split up and the soft ware and operating programs should be separate 
    John Losse
    668 Wakefield Rd.
    Goleta, CA 93117


From: RFWeg@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE settle the Microsoft litigation as negotiated. This has 
gone on long enough. It is time to put this behind us and move on. 
Thank you for your attention in this matter.


From: david schofield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I urge you to go through with and approve the settlement 
approved by the DOJ and Microsoft.
    The operating system is so inexpensive relative to what you get, 
it is hard for me to relate to the statement that Microsoft charged 
too much.
    Please end this nonsense.
    David Schofield
    7675 Classic Way
    Atlanta, Georgia 30350


From: Richard A. Beers, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice Representative:
    I find the Microsoft settlement to be a good one that is fair to 
all concerned parties. I would urge the DOJ to proceed with the 
settlement and NOT to pursue further litigation. Thank you for 
considering my views.
    Rich Beers
    Richard A. Beers, MD
    Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology
    SUNY Upstate Medical University
    Syracuse, NY 13210
    phone 315-464-4720
    email beersr@mail.upstate.edu>


From: Larry Rehg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to stop the litigation against Microsoft and get on 
with the important things in our country, like getting rid of those 
forces that want to topple our way of life and government. It's 
obvious to me that those who want to prolong this debacle are just 
looking for a big ``pay check'' and don't give a darn about the rest 
of the citizens.
    We know you're powerful, so you don't need to prove it by 
continuing this maddening attack on private industry.
    Larry M. Rehg
    Plano, Texas


From: Balloonz2u@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When we had nothing better to do, it was fashionable to blame 
Microsoft for the world's ills. We have lived through Sept.11th, so 
with thanks to G-d, let's get on with living and once again smile 
when we read the rising stock market prices. Settle the damn case!!!


From: Gale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam--
    I am writing you to let you know my opinion about the Microsoft 
pending settlement. The courts need to do whatever possible to see 
that this settlement goes through. Microsoft has done some things 
that may have hurt competition, but the consumers have done nothing 
but benefit from their products and practices. Consumers are being 
hurt so much more by all the litigation that is going on. What 
Microsoft has done for the consumer is force all software companies 
to make their products compatible with each other, make them easier 
to use and offer more features. The monopolistic practices may have 
hurt competition in the long run, but us consumers are much better 
off right now. The only people really standing to benefit from 
further litigation and/or a more stringent ruling against Microsoft 
is Microsoft's competitors. If this is truly a case to protect 
consumers, then protect us by allowing this settlement to go through 
and forcing other states not signing it to settle quickly. If 
competitors' products are as good as what Microsoft produces, let 
the capitalistic marketplace benefit these companies. Having the 
government assist them in gaining market share will not benefit 
    Thank you,
    Gale Dahlager
    Co-Owner (and bookkeeper) of Razor Rock Racing
    (bicycle component manufacturer)


From: George Dziuk Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would strongly urge you to settle this matter on terms 
favorable to Microsoft. Without companies like MS, the future of 
this country's ability to compete and lead in important economic 
areas will be severely restricted.
    I grant anyone the argument that there are warts all over 
Microsoft but they pale in comparison to the great good that MS 
brought to the computer industry years ago when a standard operating 
system didn't exist and those, like myself, who were into the infant 
personal computer craze wondered how anyone outside a big company 
could ever use one? It was too hard to buy a CPM based machine like 
I did then watch things go over to DOS and then wonder if Apple was 
going to really be ``it'' after all.

[[Page 24966]]

    DOS did make it and the rest is history. Without Bill Gates 
imposing the industry standards, regardless of whether anyone agrees 
with how he did it, this country would still be doing things with 
pen and paper on ledger sheets.
    George L. Dziuk Jr.


From: Cdsau@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not belive in more litigation. The settlement is good and 
fair for all. Thanks,
    Carlos Diaz


From: John Kerr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears that the settlement allows for benefits to 
organizations that would not normally recieve benefits. Additionally 
the heightened awareness of the issue should preclude these actions 
in the future there by putting the issue to rest. Now is not the 
time to further weaken our economy by adapting the rules to favor a 
    I think the Government would be better served by applying its 
resources to areas where help is truly needed such as airport and 
border security and the rights of individuals trying to access our 
    John Kerr


From: JFAshbaugh@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to complete this settlement and get on with other 
business. In my mind most of the allegations were unfounded to begin 
with, and the government was overzealous in it's pursuit of 
    James F. Ashbaugh


From: Raymond Le Blanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03am
Subject: Settlement
    I want to suggest that the DOJ accept the settlement terms as 
proposed by Microsoft as being fair and equitable to the consumer 
    With warmest regards,
    Ray Le Blanc


From: RSaliba@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    Can we please put this matter behind all of us so we can get on 
with better things?
    As a consumer, Microsoft has revolutionizd my personal and 
business life. I never felt they cheated me on the prices of their 
products. Moreover, it appears these anti-trust actions were brought 
not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the 
competititors and a bunch of attorneys who wanted to advance their 
    Even the class-action suit is a sham. How can an agreement to 
drop the suit in exchange for the company making a contribution to 
charities be of benefit to the class of plaintiffs the suit was 
originally designed to benefit? As a stockholder of many years, the 
Company has been very good to me, and I have no apologies. That's 
what our enterprise system is all about.
    Robert G. Saliba


From: jack engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:07am
Subject: settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The settlement with Microsoft is more than fair to the public. 
Please don't let the special interest groups and wanna-be Microsoft 
competitors get in the way of progress, and innovation. Microsoft 
has done far more good for this country than any opther firm I can 
think of.
    John A. Engel, Jr.
    Susan C. Engel
    small shareholders
    Jack Engel
    82 South Avenue
    New Canaan, CT 06840
    203 966-7576


From: lee.morrow@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May I add my voice as you consider the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. The suite brought against Microsoft and subsequent 
judgment was the beginning of the recession we find ourselves in at 
present. Please settle this matter as presented by Microsoft so it 
serves to lead us out of the recession and on the road to recovery. 
Our Congress is dragging it's feet. The Department of Justice can 
make a major contribution in moving our economy forward by rendering 
a timely decision.
    Lee Morrow


From: vera reitmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17am


From: AHenrijr@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: I like my Microsoft Stuff
    I see no problem with Microsoft and its operations. It is easy, 
quick and convienient.
    Don't mess with Microsaoft !!!
    Axel Henri


From: Tom Collison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the judgement imposed on Microsoft as it now stands, 
is fair. In my opinion, futher litigation delays implementation of 
the present agreement. Microsoft is an aggressive but innovative 
company whose developments have driven the entire industry rapidly 
    Thank You,
    Tom Collison.


From: Loumak@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: (no subject)
    i feel that microsoft has done nothing wrong and this whole 
affair is a sham.


From: anthony vorias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:13am
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    I'm In favor of settling the Microsoft case as soon as possible 
for the following reasons:
    1. What we have is a solid American company that should continue 
to do world wide business and not be ham-strung by spending millions 
on non productive defense of their case. Put that revenue and effort 
to positive future use.
    2. The products provided are productive and are at a fair price.
    3. Settlement was to provide computers & software to schools. 
Lets do it but modify the deal. 50% of the settlement products will 
be Microsoft's and the other 50% in Dollar value will be paid of by 
Microsoft for other manufacturers products and software. i.e. they 
can buy Microsoft, Apple, Linus etc, etc. etc WHATEVER THE SCHOOLS 
CHOOSE!!![ Microsoft will pay up to 50% of the settlement fee] Let's 
get these kids working with the technology of the future!! T. Vorias


From: Robert Sori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I use Windows, and several of the other products that 
have abused the legal process to try to defeat Microsoft in the 
    Windows is a great operating program that comes with several 
basic programs, The ability to surf the net, write a note, listen to 
an music file.
    Do you really think the consumer benefits from getting nothing 
in the package, and having to buy add-ons from day one.
    If I use my computer for graphics, the included ``Paint'' 
program is inadequate. But it's inclusion is just fine if my kids 
want to play with it. The same is true for ``notepad'' it is simple 
a basic way to type a note, not some conspiracy to destroy 
Wordperfect. And as for ``Internet Explorer'' has anyone installed 
Netscape, why can Netscape assume after installation that it is the 
default program for surfing the internet, and that is fine. Isn't 
this an unfair practice?
    You can not include every program that exists in the Windows 
package, and

[[Page 24967]]

excluding one over another is bound to effect the company not 
    The Government should not be in the business of siding with one 
company over another. And like the supposed cigarette settlement, 
This trial will only enrich some small group of lawyers. I have 
several checks for .75 or .60 cents, my portion of a multi million 
dollar credit card company trial, The Lawyer who though up the 
lawsuit gets 20 to 30 percent of the total, while the supposedly 
injured parties get literally pennies. This is your great profession 
at work, this is how your efforts help the injured.
    But I doubt any effort will be made to insure that settlement 
money is fairly distributed, and Lawyers don't walk away with 
millions while the litigants get pennies.
    What's next?
    Why don't you DOJ people starts to look at the buggy whip 
conspiracy, how Detroit industrialist, worked to create the 
automobile, and destroyed the leather industry giants. Or how 
electricity destroyed the candles makers, get real people, move on.
    Robert Sori
    7716 Robinglen Ave.
    Las Vegas, NV 89131


From: Garron (038) Anita Riechers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough. The settlement reached is equitable for all 
parties. As a consumer, I am satisfied. Call it a done deal and move 
on to something meaningful.
    Garron Riechers DDS


From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:21am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:23 PM
To: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If 
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any 
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how 
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against 
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the 
    Jim Renfrow
    2400 Columbine Lane
    Montrose, CO 81401-5646
    PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my 
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.


From: Moondog123@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:27am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    Believe that it is the public and the government's best interest 
that the above be expedited ASAP with minimal restrictions on 
Microsoft's ability to compete in marketplace. DOJ should remember 
and learn from similar efforts in the eighties to restrict IBM which 
came close to wiping out that company. Legal efforts at restricting 
operations in this area are usually doomed to failure because of its 
    J. Kahn
    Redding, CT


From: John Koval
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft
    The government needs to get out of the free business 
environment. Microsoft is what every American is working for, the 
American dream! Stop the wining competitors of Microsoft and tell 
them to put their wasted efforts into their business and compete in 
the free business world. The handcuffs should be taken off 
Microsoft. Stop wasting the tax payers money. Tell Sun, Oracle and 
the rest of them to compete on the business platform or choose 
another business to pursue. I have strong competitors in my business 
field and I am wondering if the DOJ is going to fight my battles. 
Shame on the politicians using this issue for additional press time 
for their own personal gains. It is time to put an end to this 
    John Koval


From: Cyril Paciullo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally think that Microsoft do excellent software and 
competitors should be ashamed to give so much efforts in the 
destruction of this company. Without Windows, most of these 
competitors wouldn't even exist. I agree that Microsoft, due to 
businesss reasons, made some hard choices in some of its designs but 
companies such as Netscape chosed to take their time to anoy 
Microsoft and not to try to improve their software.
    Cyril Paciullo.


From: Marjorie M. Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft very well maybe a powerful company and top in computer 
stuff, but let me tell you what happened in my home some years ago. 
My son was having trouble with his microsoft windows program and 
wanted to change so we went to a local computer store and bought OS 
(I don't remember what version it was) he wiped the computer clean, 
reformmated the hard drive and install OS--What a mess we ended up 
with, the computer kept freezing up and when it didn't there wasn't 
anything you could do that was compatible with anything else, so OS 
got the boot and Microsoft windows was reinstalled, there isn't 
enough competition out there that is useable for the computer 
dummies like me to use anything but Microsoft Windows. I realize 
there are those that say if there was anything else available they 
wouldn't use Microsoft, seems to me like those that want to cut down 
Microsoft just are not thinking beyond the end of their nose, they 
want to make demands that could very well be unreasonable, and they 
do have the money to go with another system so why don't they just 
do it and in so doing would help build a network of competition for 
Microsoft, why should us commoners have to suffer at some nerds 
expense? I just don't understand why if someone doesn't like a 
product instead of saying one company is all wrong they just don't 
find another brand to use and keep their big fat mouths shut! Why 
don't they go buy Macs' and use that system? Personally I don't like 
Navigator, I found it to be not! user friendly like windows is and 
it got uninstalled from my computer in nothing flat!
    The settlement that the DOJ agreed to should be the final thing 
and these other AG's should be told to deal with it and quit acting 
like they are ``God's gift to the earth and know what everyone 
wants'' they don't! they just want money to spend on some pet 
project that won't get financed without the Microsoft money.
    Thanks for listening to me vent.


From: Gerald Weston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:32am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Its time that this thing was ended. It should never have 
started. This is nothing more than an example of how ``bought and 
paid for'' senators (i.e. Orin Hatch) are brought into the 
competitive arena to give a competitive advantage to companies that 
cannot succeed on their own. Market forces will find the proper 
balance if everybody leaves them alone. Microsoft does not have any 
sort of the competitive edge that IBM did with the mag-card 


From: MSINGEBORG@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


From: Joseph Wages
To: DOJ Microsoft
Date: 1/3/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney settlement brings this matter to a close as fairly as 
can be expected after all the effort that went into the trial Anti-
trust laws are for the benefit of the consumer not competitors. This 
settlement should be approved so we can get on with the business of 
    Joseph E. Wages
    1813 Cliffside Drive
    Pfafftown NC 27040

[[Page 24968]]


From: William Oneil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir: I'm glad you settled the Microsoft case. Its been a major 
drag on the economy, in my opinion one of the main causes of the 
recession we're in. I'm also glad you did not require Microsoft to 
leave a lot of programs out of windows. Its already hard enough to 
use, without having a bunch of restrictions on including programs 
that will make users lives easier.
    Bill ONeil


From: VJCapece4@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel Microsoft as a company has gone through enough. Now it is 
time for the Government and States to settle this case and let Bill 
Gates get back to business. 911 proved to the world that as a people 
we can come together regardless of our differences and get the job 
done, now is the time to do so in this case. Lets think of all the 
contributions Microsoft has made to the economy and the computing 
industry and let these guys and gals get back to work and make the 
USA even stronger.


From: visionmt@ mail.msy.bell south.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time for the Microsoft vs. DOJ litigation to end. In the 
best interest of our free enterprise system, and therefore America, 
the settlement in the Microsoft case must be accepted. What if 
Microsoft existed in another country? How dissimilar would our 
economic independance be if we were in a position in software 
capabilities as we are in our energy situation to the ``Oil 
Cartel?'' How much of a joke would it be if we tried to ``rein in'' 
a ``software cartel'' from another country?
    It's time to end this silliness!
    Cordially yours,
    Kenneth R. Parker


From: Wagner, Joyce, CIV, 164 CEGS, DE
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What a shame the government has spent so much time and money to 
go after a company that has an operating system that just ``can't be 
beat''. If there is a better option from any other company, let 
``them'' come up with a marketing strategy and present it to the 
public just as Microsoft has done.
    Bill Gates started this company with nothing--free enterprise at 
it's finest! Let all the other Bill Gates comes forward if they have 
something better to offer--until then, the government needs to get 
out of the business of running Microsoft's business and wasting 
taxpayers money.
    I wonder how many of these people who are so against Microsoft 
have uninstalled the Windows system from their computer and 
installed another operating system--
    Joyce B. Wagner


From: R Thomsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE be done with this stupid and harrassing suit against 
Microsoft. This country is based on initiative and free enterprise. 
Because one firm is able to supply what the public wants is no 
excuse for the competition to run to the Govt. and cry unfair. Let 
them instead improve their products and compete. A settlement has 
been reached, let it be so.
    Roy A. Thomsen


From: Dorothy MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to setle this. I am for the settlement aggreement.
    Dorothy MacDonald


From: Joe Giunta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An agreement has been reached that exceeds what the Appellate 
court had mandated. It is time for the federal and state governments 
to resolve this conflict that has actually harmed many more people 
than it ever intended to help.


From: JCOCKMAN12@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:40am
Subject: (no subject)
    I am in favor of the settlement.


From: liles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would certainly support the earliest settlement of the case 
against Microsoft. In the light of current economic conditions the 
advantages that Microsoft had in the past have largely evaporated. 
Let's get back to business!! Microsoft is a very valuable asset in 
our economy and the continued uncertainty in the markets need a 
settlement very important.
    Jerry B Liles
    1009 East Sixth
    Alice, Texas 78332


From: Marcia3838@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: I am completely in agreement with a swift and 
immediate settlement of this case. Marcia Lichti


From: dan heines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45am
    Dear DOJ--I understand that you are interested in comment from 
the public re Microsoft. I say, enough is enough. Let them go back 
providing great products. You and the various States get off their 
back. I hope you have more important and productive things to do.
    Yours truly,
    Dan K. Heines


From: BDS4530@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    Absolutely this settlement should be made!!! It should never 
have even been brought in the first place. This country is great 
because of innovative people like Bill Gates. I can't believe that 
our justice system allowed it to go on this long. When we attack our 
own is it any wonder that fools like Ben Laden and his followers 
think they can?


From: Henry Harriss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:46am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    All charges and suits against Microsoft should be immediately 
dropped. Such a fragrant and evil interference with the free 
economic system and against free enterprise is having terrible 
consequences for Microsoft, the consumers, the industry, the 
shareholders and this country. Let the market rule. Otherwise, our 
country suffers except for a few greedy lawyers and state attorney 
    H. Harriss


From: Jonas Poblador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer and consumer, I strongly agree that the 
currently settlement is fair. The CONTRACTS issue has been resolved 
and I with that, it would be nice if the same rule will apply to 
every other industry and sector.
    The right to innovate and add new features in product is an all 
American right. This bundling or packaging marketing scheme is 
currently well and alive across all sectors of American business. 
The bundling of CD/stereos & air-conditioning in the car industry 
worked well for everybody. I also do not believe that the govt 
should protect companies like SUN, ORACLE and AOL. These companies 
are big enough to compete. They should come up with new ideas 
inorder to survive. SUN, ORACLE and AOL has been the leader in thier 
respective market for a number of years--they should be inovative to 
stay ahead. They should also be more realistic in thier pricing to 
keep thier leadership. The Govt should just let the market dectate 
thier faith. We should avoid the protectionism mentally that is 
adopted by our EUROPEAN freinds because they only

[[Page 24969]]

work in the short term. I feel that the current DOJ team is fair and 
more up to date on current issues that the previous team.
    Jonas Poblador


From: Jerry C. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
    Dear Sir:
    I have recently purchased a home computer with Microsoft Windows 
XP Home Edition operating system preinstalled.
    First, I found that as part of the user's agreement, I had to 
agree to allow Microsoft to upgrade the operating system and install 
supplemental software while I worked on the internet. By using this 
approach to maintaining the operating system, I will not be able to 
apply fixes and upgrades myself if I decide not to use the internet. 
In addition, I do not want Microsoft determining how I use the 
internet. Finally, no one has been able to explain what types of 
supplemental software Microsoft plans to install.
    Secondly, I found that other Microsoft programs that came pre-
installed on this computer also set up communication links with 
other remote computers, which I can only assume are Microsoft 
computers. I have no idea what types of information is being 
transmitted while these links are open.
    Thirdly, I found that I was not provided with an original copy 
of the operating system on a CD for me to use to restore the system 
if I have problems or to restore files if they become corrupted. 
Instead I am required to provide space on my hard drive for a backup 
copy of the operating system that they can use to restore my 
operating system if I have any problems. This is a poor strategy to 
system recovery, because I cannot do normal system maintenance 
myself. And, if I have a hard drive failure, I have to buy a new 
hard drive with an operating system already installed, where I 
should have the option of replacing the hard drive myself and using 
the CD to restore the operating system.
    I believe that Microsoft is using unfair business practices by 
depriving me of my right to maintain my own computer if I so desire, 
and by transmitting information from my computer where I have no 
idea what the information is. I also believe that Microsoft is 
infringing on my right to use the internet and my computer as I 
    Thank you.
    Jerry Johnson


From: KSHAH36633@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not understand all ligality about this subject. This case 
is going on for more than 4 years. I am sure by this time our 
justice dept. must have heard from both side all sorts of argument & 
evidence, and collected lots of evidence of their own. Enough is 
enough. It is time to stop appeals after appeals & make final 
decision once & for all, but fare to all parties.


From: Gary Masterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I have been working in the computing industry since my 
graduation from college in 1972, practically 30 years. From my 
vantage point, Microsoft Corporation has been a primary player in 
revolutionizing the way computing is done. They have been the 
catalyst for producing less costly operating systems and software so 
that today virtually any home owner can own and operate a computer. 
This would have been financially impossible not too many years ago.
    For the community of users who have come to rely on Microsoft, 
the case that the justice department has brought against them is a 
true misuse of justice. Microsoft has made things better for the 
business community, better for the home owner, improved the quality 
of programs available, provided software and support at reasonable 
prices (unheard of low prices compared to where the industry was 20 
years ago), and spawned many, many other businesses. It is an 
outrage that the US Government would use our tax dollars to 
prosecute a company that has done so much. I urge that this case be 
settled in the most expeditious manner possible. Thank you.
    Gary Masterson
    Director of Marine Simulation
    Buffalo Computer Graphics
    3741 Lake Shore Road
    Blasdell, NY 14219
    Phone: 716-822-8668
    Fax: 716-822-2730
    email: gmasterson@buffalocomputergraphics.com


From: Ventura, Albert Arthur (Al)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom it may concern
    Please be advised that I feel as do many of my co workers do 
that the suit against Microsoft should be finished by forcing the 
remaining 9 States that have not settled to come to some type of 
agreement with Microsoft. The US taxpayer has had enough time wasted 
on this suit and wants it over with. Also it is my opinion that the 
US Judicial System should show more restraint of actions against 
Microsoft in the future because its certainly starting to look like 
their singling out one corporation even though that corporation has 
done so much to provide increased productivity applications not only 
for the United States Corporations but for Corporations around the 
    Thank You
    Albert Ventura
    Lucent Technologies
    Technical Support Services
    3G-UMTS Data Provisioning


From: Kris Ruckman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to offer my thoughts on the microsoft settlement. I 
work for one of the big 5 consulting firms where I help my clients 
utilize many of microsoft's products as well as products of their 
competitors (sun microsystems, oracle, etc.). My experience with 
microsoft's product suite is that they develop world class software. 
Their software is consistently well developed and integrated and 
offers my clients a very good solution.
    Their products have increased in functionality and usability 
while consistently being competitively priced, a compelling 
combination for any business. Microsoft has consistently beaten the 
competition in delivering software that is useful, price competitive 
and well integrated. Sun, Oracle and others have good products, but 
their claim Microsoft that has some monopoly on the market or 
somehow forces companies to use their products is completely wrong. 
My clients choose Microsoft products because they routinely beat the 
competition in functionality, integration and price. In the ultra-
competitive software industry, a monopoly simply does not exist.
    While I do not agree with the majority of the rulings in the 
settlement, namely that microsoft operated as a monopoly and stifled 
competition, it is now time to settle this case. Microsoft needs to 
get back to the business of developing world-class software that 
meets the needs of companies. I encourage everyone to settle this 
quickly and fairly so we can all get back to business.
    Kris Ruckman


From: Yomamasana@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As an American citizen and registered voter, I beg you to accept 
the settlement against Microsoft. For the benefit of our economy and 
our future, let's move forward as a nation healing it's wounds. 
Thank you.
    Ana Crafton
    701 Garlyn Ct
    Saint Louis, MO 63123


From: J. Drew Dials
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a technology professional, I've been following the Microsoft/
DOJ case from the beginning. It is my opinion that these remaining 
unsettled states do not have the consumers best interest in mind at 
all. These states are being influenced by the companies within them 
that are unable to compete with Microsoft solely on a product 
comparison basis. As a software developer, I have enjoyed the 
benefits that Microsoft has built into their developement platforms 
and technologies for a few years now. These technologies and 
accompanying support, documentation, user communities, etc. are what 
make Microsoft stand above the rest. These features are what enable 
Microsoft to win business on many fronts. These features are what 
draws the consumer to the

[[Page 24970]]

Microsoft platform. And these features are what these other 
``unsettled'' companies refuse to compete with. Now, instead of 
making a comparable product or even better product that the consumer 
would readily embrace, they are attempting to use government to 
fight their battles for them. If these companies were making these 
high quality products to compete with the Microsoft platform, then 
this case would not even exist and we would not have spent millions 
of taxpayers dollars in an attempt to stunt Microsoft's growth. And 
this is for the consumer? I think it would be a crime and a shame 
for this government to play favorites to a few companies because 
they can't compete in this highly competitive economy and I hope the 
DOJ feels the same.
    Thank you,
    Jon Drew Dials


From: mppanter@hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time for this to be over! The tax payers have 
spent enough chasing a vendetta type lawsuit with the chance to put 
some money in your pockets. Admit it States Attorneys!
    Bill Gates simply has a superior product and is much smarter 
than you!


From: Tim Schuele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US Government has wasted enough time and money pursuing 
Microsoft. I wholey support the settlement. This matter should be 
put to rest as soon as possible.
    Thank you
    Tim Schuele


From: MKuechmann@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion Microsoft is being punished for its innovations 
and vision for the future. I am not a computer genius. I only 
perform simple tasks on the computer by using Windows and Microsoft 
Word and Excell. That is it. Vey simplistic tasks.
    So, Justice Department give these people compliments. Their 
competitors have not been able to develop software as easy to use as 
    Maria Kuechmann


From: loiso@mindspring.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Tunney Act
    I believe that the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
government to be a fair settlement for all concerned. Please settle 
this action quickly to allow Microsoft to continue doing its job 
with its greatest creativity for its users and profit to its 
    Thank you for your consideration, Lois Ogburn, Microsoft 


From: neh--teh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft case shold be settled with no further litigation. 
The settlement is more than fair to all parties involved. Continued 
litigation will only benefit an extremely few wealthy corporations. 
Let this great American economy get on with innovation which can 
only benefit the economies of the world.


From: Robert Krance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Dept of Justice settlement and the appeal put 
forth by a number of states to further punish and limit the company, 
I wish to say that these efforts to control Microsoft will nothing 
to help the individual end user.
    I have been using computers to perform my occupation and 
personal responsibilities for the past 20 years. I am not literate 
in computer technology but consider myself reasonably competent in 
using software for word-processing, spreadsheet, and database 
applications. I remember beginning with DOS and working with 
WordPerfect, Lotus, Quattro, etc. Attempting to integrate operating 
systems and software, no matter whose, was always a frustrating and 
non-productive process. I never want to return to that situation 
    Frankly, I still spend too much of my time trying to make 
hardware, software and operating systems compliant with each other. 
Innovation is a dirty concept when it means frustration, wasted 
time, and in the end a soup of diverse components that don't work 
together on my machine much less work with other users. This is what 
we face if the states persist in their attempt to punish and 
ultimately limit Microsoft. I would mush prefer seeing Microsoft 
being held accountable for compatibility issues with their operating 
system and the multiple software and hardware applications that 
require it.
    It seems to me that in real dollars the cost of computing has 
come down exponentially in the twenty years I have been doing this. 
We must owe something to Microsoft, Intel, IBM and a number of 
others. Left to its own elitist approach (disguised as an advocate 
for the common man, remember the Ridley Scott commercial during the 
Super Bowl), Macintosh would cost thousands of dollars more today. 
In my first attempts at computing, I bought DOS and an IBM-based 
system, simply because it cost half as much as Macintosh. Back then 
DOS and the Intel-IBM configuration were not equal to Macintosh, but 
the cost of the latter was prohibitive for many of us.
    Oracle and Sun are doing just fine, thank you. They've never 
approached the individual end user to provide a product. If allowed 
to foul up the current computing environment, these companies will 
price millions of us out of computing, just as Macintosh did. The 
Internet would remain a perk for academics and industry. Please 
don't kill the goose. Make MIcrosoft even more responsive to end 
    Robert Krance
    13 Clear Springs Court
    Sugar Land, TX


From: Mustangdrv@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the settlement as set forth by the government and 
other states. Further litigation will not have a positive effect on 
the general public; it will merely fatten the purses of the 
attorneys involved.
    The fact is that the majority of folks who purchase new 
computers (including ourselves) prefer the Microsoft operating 
system. If Microsoft 98 had not been preloaded on our computer, we 
would have purchased and installed it.
    Let the settlement stand.
    Connie & Roger Larson
    PO Box 648
    Auburn, WA 98071


From: James E Bauer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the suggested settlement is fair to all parties, and I 
also believe that our country has suffered and will continue to 
suffer until the settlement is effected. Let us not punish success 
in the marketplace.
    Microsoft has led the way in making America the technology 
capital of the world. Let's get on with the future!


From: John Folino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:06am


From: johnny sterneker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to close the case against Microsoft. In my opinion, 
the whole power and majesty of the U.S. Government was brought to 
bear against an American Corporation in very questionable 
    Get it overwith, NOW!

[[Page 24971]]


From: RMondillo@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Enough with these continuing litigation talks! I cannot see how 
this helps the American consumer at all. Microsoft has been 
chastened, and I assume there are now ``firewalls'' in place to 
prevent abuse in the future. We tout a free enterprise system in 
this country, so long as certain 'special interests' are not 
offended, and so long as one innovator does not become too 
successful. Tell me, how does the innovator stop him/herself from 
innovating? That is what built and continues to build our country.
    I believe that Microsoft like them or not, has been more a 
benefit to the consumer than a hinderance. In our system, if there 
were a better, more efficient product available, people would flock 
to it. So, now that Microsoft has been exposed (as the greatest 
innovator) and slowed down, where are all these other great products 
from the competitors, which are going to better all of our lives?
    Continuing litigation smacks of a few more hangers on (states) 
attempting to draw freely from an entity they had nothing to do with 
creating, and most certainly have benefited from on an ongoing basis 
(taxes on many Microsoft sales for example).
    The settlement is tough and fair! Let's all get on with our 
lives. I for one hope that Microsoft continues to find the incentive 
to innovate.
    Ron Mondillo


From: CB32X4@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:07am
    I wish to state my views on the Microwave settlement and they 
will be short but they fairly represent my position on this matter. 
I am a small business owner that works from my home as a home 
builder in North Carolina with 30 years of building experience. I 
graduated with a degree in Chemistry from Elon College (now Elon 
University) and started my building career before the computer 
revolution began. Slide rules, ledger paper, and hand written checks 
were the order of the day.
    I recognized that the computer revolution was going to leave me 
behind if I did not get on board. So I computerized my business in 
1983 and immediately found that I could multiply my efforts with 
technology in lieu of manpower. As a self taught computer person I 
cannot continue compete in the building business without the 
benefits of quality and compressively designed software and 
compatible hardware. The Microsoft windows software and similar 
programs are essential to the success of my business and to so many 
more of the baby boomers trying to compete with the more computer 
literate recent graduates of today.
    I worry that this litigation would reduce the gains of Microsoft 
technology to another VHS/BETA war that some win and some will loose 
out and who is looking out for the loosers. Please allow this great 
innovative company to settle the litigation and let the rest of us 
continue to operate our businesses with the best available choices 
that we can find. If Microsoft's product did not work they would not 
be selling them the way that they are. This country cannot continue 
bust up good companies for the sake of a chance on new upstarts that 
may or may not workout.
    The past histories of the breakup of AT&T and the cell service 
divisions within cities is all of the proof that our Justice 
Department should stay out of Corporate America. The Justice 
Department must have better things to do that screw up hard work of 
so many small business people.
    Thanks for reading my views and lets get on with the business of 
being cooperative Americans, we all have much to celebrate and with 
which to be proud.
    Chester W. Burgess
    Burgess Construction Co.


From: Chirrip@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is past time for this settlement, which is fair to all, to be 
accepted and finalized !!!! Let's now put it to bed. George 
Chironis, of Melville, NY, 11747


From: Melvin C. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I believe the settlement between the US Dept of Justice and 
Microsoft is fair and should be finalized. I feel the United States 
is fortunate to have Microsoft as a company. I trust Microsoft 100% 
more than any of the media or politicians.
    Melvin C. & Lillian H. Phillips [757-566-4578]
    7277 Osprey Drive, Lanexa, VA 23089-9410
    E-Mail: mel.va@home.com or mel.va@netzero.net


From: Anthony Kozojed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    My husband and I have used microsoft along with Netscape 
Navigator and AOL since 1994. We are both over 60 and have time to 
use the computer at home. We can see no possible reason to sue 
Microsoft when we purchased our computer, we added Microsoft Windows 
95 by our choice and since we live in far Northern Minnesota there 
was no internet service available except through Netscape Navigator 
from Radio Shack, since then a local phone company and cable company 
have started internet service. We use the ``E'' symbol from 
Microsoft to connect to the ebay site, the light house from Netscape 
for our family history site, and man from AOL to talk to family and 
friend and email. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
    Sharon @ Anthony Kozojed


From: Ted Staplin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the settlement agreed to by Microsoft, the 
government and participating states should be enacted.
    I am most concerned about spending tax payers dollars pursuing 
legal action that is not in the taxpayers best interest.
    I have worked in the computer business my entire career (37 
    I have never worked for Microsoft and in fact have worked for 
their competitors.
    It is my belief that they have made a significant contribution 
to the USA economy and in particular to advancing Computer 
technology. The consumer has directly benefited from this in being 
able to buy computer technology that has advanced significantly 
during my career, at a fraction of the cost.
    Ted Staplin
    104 Garrison Road
    Chelmsford, MA 01824


From: J Houston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:11am
    Get off Microsoft's back. Without its so called monopoly we 
still be figuring change at the cashier line.
    Jesse Houston


From: John.Shaver@fairfaxcounty.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The Microsoft settlement case should be settled without further 
litigation. I see little need to prolong this case. The current 
provisions are fair for all parties. The interests of the American 
people are better served with less litigation and more innovation.


From: Curt Mackie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a resident of the State of Iowa. I am very disappointed 
that our Attorney General continues on what I believe to be a 
``witch hunt'' with regards to Microsoft and its business practices. 
I have owned personal computers since 1983. I have had many 
opportunities in the past and currently to purchase other software, 
both operating systems and application programs. I have elected to 
run Microsoft Windows and Office as my major production package 
after trying several others that I have purchased and currently 
still own. (Red Hat Linux, IBM OS2, and BEOS are examples of the 
operation systems currently available to anyone who wants them. Also 
there are too many

[[Page 24972]]

application programs available to list them all, however I will 
mention Lotus 123. I can remember when it was the only spreadsheet 
available and it cost several hundreds of dollars. And, it was copy 
protected to boot. So heaven help you if you lost or damaged your 
disk! I am very happy that Microsoft makes available the products 
that they do. I am free to chose to purchase them or not. When 
something better comes down the road I will make that decision also.
    I think we should put this mess behind us. Let Microsoft do 
business. Let its competitors come up with better products and we 
will purchase them. I am a home user. Thank you for listening.
    Curt Mackie
    515-981-0720 cell 515-779-1300


From: Win Bartsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to inform you that I am in favor of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation. Since I never agreed with any 
part of the governments case, I am in favor of ending the issue as 
quickly as possible.
    Mr. Win Bartsch
    1850 Beans Bight Rd. NE
    Bainbridge Island, WA


From: Iceducks@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am


From: Lovelace Rucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to advise that as a consumer I am satisfied with the 
Microsoft Settlement as it now stands. We are tired of always trying 
to satisfy the jealous public interest people. We are for free 
enterprise and capitalism. The size of the company makes no 
difference as the cream always rises to the top. Our government 
needs to get on with their own business and let ALL the cream risers 
keep supplying consumers with their tremendous products and new 
innovations. Micro- soft is a wonderful example of USA spirit in 
capitalism and the freedom to be successful in the Land Of The Free.


From: DCarpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Congrats doj the settlement is OK for me
    Love Dave


From: paul stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:21am
Subject: Good Morning,
    Good Morning,
    As a consumer using Windows, I have never been injured from its 
use. I find the software to be very productive. The government is 
wasting tax payer money pursing this matter. The original issue is 
mute by the march of technology.
    Paul K. Stout
    Training Coordinator
    ASTD Member


From: bilehnert@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have continued to believe that the case against Microsoft has 
been carried too far. It is important not to stifle innovation. I 
have been retired for 11 years and my former company still benefits 
from the 17 years of protection that has been provided for the 
patents under my name.
    One of the issues in the Microsoft case revolves around the 
browser. I have always had Netscape as my browser and in the 4.5 and 
6.2 versions they are just as all consuming as Micosoft in their 
    It seems to me that no one has gained in this litigation, 
especially because it has been dragged out so long. Let's put this 
thing to rest once and for all. It was my understanding that a 
settlement had been worked out but some States have continued to 
keep the case going. I have already expressed disappointment that my 
home state of Florida is one of the procrastinators. I have also 
been been disturbed at the way the DOJ has handled the case. The 
fairest and most sensible thing for all concerned is to end it once 
and for all. Charles W. Lehnert, retiree and consultant.


From: Tyler, Joanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:26am
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is in the public 
interest. I believe that Microsoft has not engaged in monopolistic 
practices; that the company should have never been sued; and now a 
settlement should occur--closing this case forever.
    Joanna Tyler, Ph.D., M.B.A.
    Research Director
    Northrop Grumman Information Technology Health Solutions and 
    1700 Reseach Blvd., Suite 400
    Rockville, MD 20850


From: leathers@nwlink.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read and followed the case on and off through the months. 
I have not read the entire proposed settlement but I will give you 
my two thoughts on the matter for starters.
    - I believe that it is a good thing for our lives, to keep 
microsoft together, one company, doing the many things that they do 
best. And that dividing the company in any degree, would be a 
solution that just pleases certain people, but does not solve 
anything and probably makes it worse.
    - However, I agree with Apple computer spokespeople 100%, that 
microsoft should not be allowed to pay fees to the court, by 
flooding the education market ``schools, libraries, etc.'', with 
``free'' computers, in essence, doing something they have not been 
able to do through sales, which is to infringe on that market. 
Allowing them to do so, would tie schools into using their software, 
their upgrades, for decades, and would further empower them as a 
monopoly, taking away from the market power of competitive hardware 
and software companies, like Apple, and Sun.


From: Gary H. Minar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's be serious about what is happening. MS Corp. has created 
more beneficial products that have made the world become better 
'connected, enhanced how we commuicate, improved business 
productivity, improved Gov't efficiency, among others. Why is MS 
being punished for such never-before seen creativity? It is UNJUST. 
MS should be applauded at every opportunity. They have done more for 
human kind thru computer technology than anyone else I know.
    05) 688-7957, FAX: 693-8618, Solvang, CA


From: Ann Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this suit with Microsoft so the country can move 
ahead. I believe the uncertainty about the outcome has played a 
tremendous roll in the stock markets inability to sustain a major 
rally. The country needs some good news right now, especially with 
our service men & women overseas and others here still cleaning up 
ground zero.
    Thank you,
    Ann Keefe, Concerned Citizen


From: Stewart.Menking@relian cenational.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24973]]

    Microsoft created an industry that revolutionzed how we work and 
play. The cost of their products goes down as their products 
improve. And when they gave something away for free, a few big 
companies started to scream. I have yet to understand how this has 
hurt me or any other consumer.
    This case should be put into the history books as soon as 


From: Davis, Suzanne
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to put this issue to rest and proceed with the agreed 
upon settlement. As a business user and a personal user I have 
always believed that all end users would not be where we are today 
without the efforts and uniqueness of Microsoft development. I'm not 
a lawyer so it is possible that Microsoft did go over the legal line 
with regards to marketing and sales efforts, but competition 
certainly did not have these same tools to offer. I don't believe 
that this suit was fair in the first place and it was a ``marketing 
tool'' used by competitors to save their businesses and ``award'' 
them for not being able to fairly compete with Microsoft. Do not 
waste my tax money on any more proceedings that do not result in 
this settlement being completed. The lawyers have had a chance to 
earn their fees. Our economy and international business communities 
need to get back on track.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings.
    Suzanne Davis
    Information Manager


From: JRobin1001@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my view that the Microsoft Settlement is fair and 
reasonable and should be concluded without further litigation or 
    John G. Robinson
    49 Bay Shore Drive
    Plymouth, MA 02360


From: linnco .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my strong opinion that this case be 
settled once and for all. Please do not allow business competitors 
to derail the settlement for their own gain. SETTLE THIS CASE! The 
economy needs this to be finalized.


From: PopPopOne@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32am
Subject: microsoft setlement
    The settlement the government has reached with Microsoft is more 
than fair for the Government. I happen to believe that this suit 
should not have been brought in the first place. Settle it and get 
it over.
    Jerry Simmons


From: Mike Gnadt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern/DOJ:
    I am the owner of a small business that has been using Microsoft 
products for over a decade. During this period, I have found the 
pricing, after-sales support and user friendliness to be superior to 
other products that we have tried.
    In addition, the availability of an extensive variety of 
different products and business tools that are designed to run on 
the Windows operating system has enabled me to be more productive at 
a cost that is affordable. Consequently, I have been able to reduce 
the cost of doing business and pass some of savings on to my 
employees in the form of higher salaries.
    I have had a significant share of my own personal retirement 
funds invested in stocks like Microsoft and other related companies 
that rely on the business generated by Microsoft. Since the DOJ 
initiated the litigation with Microsoft, I have watched my 
retirement funds retreat to lower valuations. It is my sincere 
belief that this litigation, while being extremely expensive and 
unproductive, it is not in the best interests of the American 
consumer. Additionally, the cost to the economy in general is too 
much to sacrifice for a litigation with such little merit. 
Basically, I do not believe that the Government has demonstrated 
that Microsoft has damaged the consumer; and, therefore, Microsoft 
should not be forced to divert any more financial and intellectual 
resources to its defense.
    Very sincerely,
    Myron A. Gnadt


From: WenParrish@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:33am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I'm very much in favor of the Microsoft Settlement, and believe 
it's in the best interest of the Country to get this settled now. 
The economy will suffer if this settlement is not honored.


From: El Sawy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:34am
Subject: Common Sense
    Can good common sense please prevail? Our portfolios have been 
devastated ever since the Department of Justice started taking 
creative US technology to court.
    Soraya El Sawy


From: David G Marek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not one accustomed to writing letters to the DOJ. However, 
I believe it is time that we put the entire Microsoft fiasco behind 
us. I look at what Microsoft has given us in terms of Operating 
System, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentation Software, 
Database, etc. and am amazed of the seamless interfaces between 
these products. I am tired of special interest groups trying to 
manupulate government for their own interests. It is time to move 
on. As a government, with terrorism, recession, etc. facing us, we 
have much better places to spend our time and money. The only thing 
this continued case is doing is putting a lot of lawyers to work.
    david g marek


From: Betty Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Further litigation is unnecessary, you should settle now ! It is 
in the best economic interest of all concerned, especially the 
consumers. SETTLE!!!!!!
    Betty Z. Thompson


From: Blondin, John Q (SEATTLE SE/TE/ZQ 335)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    This suit has drained this country for far too long both 
financially and mentally. It is time to wrap up and move on. 
Microsoft has created the standard for computer usage in the world. 
It has become much like the English language, the common language of 
business and air traffic and tourism. It enables the world to 
function much better than it would with many computer languages. It 
has created a platform from which many others can build and sell 
products further enabling us all to communicate and do business. The 
US Govt is wasting its time and taxpayer dollars trying to hamstring 
a national treasure at the request of its competitors. I thought 
this country was about competition.
    The US Govt should spend even a fraction of this effort on doing 
something about airport screening. Since 9/11 almost nothing has 
been done. Nationalize the job and get QUALIFIED US CITIZENS to work 
there. Stop just talking.
    John Q. Blondin; Seattle, WA., 98136


From: Jumana Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement with Microsoft. Do not let 
Microsoft's competitors dictate what will only benefit them in this 
settlement. The consumers and the economy need this settlement.
    Jumana S. Scoggins


From: Joe Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

[[Page 24974]]

    I am writing to voice my support for the settlement with 
Microsoft. I think this lawsuit has been a travesty of justice from 
the beginning. The lawsuit does not stem from consumer harm but from 
the mindless ambition of the Clinton administration and the 
corruptness of Janet Reno. The state attorney generals have proven 
to be nothing but greedy opportunists who have no regard for the 
well being of their citizens, many of whom are Microsoft or other 
technology stock investors. The supposed ``harm'' that Microsoft has 
caused has only been noted by one group, the competitors of 
Microsoft. The lawsuit against Microsoft, on the other hand, has 
created real harm to our entire country. The stock market has been 
decimated, wrecking retirement accounts, college savings accounts 
and all other investment vehicles. The snowball effect of the stock 
market decline has brought our entire economy to its knees, and is 
the true reason our country is in a recession today. It is time to 
put this entire affair behind us by settling this lawsuit.
    Joe W. Taylor, II
    160 Willow Bend Court
    Bowling Green, KY 42104


From: CTJ592@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Tell the government to go after bin Ladin, Kadafi and all the 
other government terrorist that are right here in the U.S. with the 
same zeal that they are going after Microsoft and maybe we wouldn't 
be in the predicament that we???re in now.


From: e baxter lemmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: microsoft settlement


From: bdkittley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:47am
Subject: Observations about case & Microsoft business practices
    I think that the original motives of DOJ in bringing the lawsuit 
were misplaced. Fear it was punishment, because Microsoft no longer 
wanted to ``cooperate'' with other US agencies demands for access to 
systems. Microsoft writes good software, but some of the things that 
the systems ``enable'' are regularly abused by third party software. 
This is why the OS is always locking up.
    Financially punitive remedys will solve nothing. This said, ``It 
would be a mistake to allow Microsoft to continue to extend the 
standards to insure incompatibility with all other OS's''. This 
practice cost the government and consumers far too much, and 
contributes little new value. Please, bias this settlement to focus 
open standards and on building a better mouse trap, not another 
marketing scam.
    Settle this thing, and get on with business.
    Dave Kittley
    P.O. Box 203
    Rule, TX 79547


From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
    Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..? 
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...? 
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money 
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to 
adults who are supposedly smart.
    STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to 
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the 
way the marketplace works.
    Pierre Legrand
    4137 Broussard Street
    Baton Rouge, La. 70808


From: Motelman2@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is tough, fair and just. The 
vast majority of the people in the nation believe the antitrust case 
should be settled now and we should move on!
    Special interests should NOT be allowed to drag this thing out. 
Technology is our strong suit from a business and innovation 
viewpoint. It drives our economy. It should not be hampered by undue 
preoccupation with fighting a case that has already been fairly 


From: Lauren Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I strongly support settling the Microsoft case. Too much time 
and effort has been wasted on this already. It is time to let a 
company that has brought good products to the American public get on 
with business. By the way, I have no relationship with Microsoft 
other than a small investment in their stock.
    Lauren Friedman


From: Origger@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The nine states that have refused the federal goxernment's 
settlement with Microsoft are trying to make Microsoft share holders 
pay for theirfoolish spending.


From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ----- Original Message -----
From: ``Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand'' plegrand@home.com>
To: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:48 
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
    Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..? 
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...? 
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money 
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to 
adults who are supposedly smart.
    STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to 
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the 
way the marketplace works.
    Pierre Legrand
    4137 Broussard Street
    Baton Rouge, La. 70808 225-924-6661


From: McCauley, John Joseph Jr. (091)AMSTA-AR-WEA(093)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Settle the Damn Case, for the life of me I still can't figure 
out how it got to Court in the first place. Stop wasting money and 
time on this situation. It is a shame that with Real Estate Rip 
Off's, Insurance Rip Off's, Health Care Rip Off's and yes the 
Attorney Fee rip Off's the Government has the time and the money to 
waste to continue with this.
    John McCauley
    4123 Conashaugh Lakes
    Milford, Pa.18337


From: Robert MacCallum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please bring this settlement to a close. It is my personal 
opinion that the stock market drop had its beginnings in the 
Microsoft case brought by the DOJ. Whether it really did, or not, it 
seems that dragging out this settlement can do nothing to help the 
economy get going again.
    Your truly, Robert W. MacCallum
    Travelers Rest, SC.


From: Mike and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:50am
Subject: This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust 
    This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust 
    1. It is encouraging that the justice department was able to 
save the tax payers money by allowing Netscape to write/dictate the 
complaint. They didn't charge us for that, did they?

[[Page 24975]]

    2. I was much encouraged that the word monopoly was used so 
frequently in the complaint. I am sure that by using the word so 
frequently it must be true.
    3. Now that you have used millions of our tax-payer dollars to 
prosecute this case, I am sure the reasonable prices previously 
experienced by the American software users will be greatly enhanced. 
This, I am sure will offset the great expense.
    Conclusion: If you haven't determined from my remarks, I feel 
this entire proceeding is a miscarriage of justice. However, since 
justice is not the business of the American court system, I hope at 
least the lawyers who profited had a good time.
    I believe it is in the best interest of the American people to 
complete this case now, with the settlement that is on the table.
    Mike Frye


From: Diane Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:53am


From: Keith D. Olinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge the Court and the remaining nine states to 
accept the settlement reached between Microsoft, the DOJ and nine 
states. It is long past time to put this very politically motivated 
piece of our history behind us, and let the economy begin to heal. 
It is truly a sad time in our history when good American companies 
are put through this type of punishment for being innovative and 
relentless in their pursuit of helping the world advance. End this 
pathetic madness now! As a person that deploys massive numbers of 
computer desktops, laptops and servers, I can tell you that the 
benefits of having a common desktop, massive resources for 
development and deployment, and literally thousands and thousands of 
applications that work on that platform are a tremendous time and 
money saver for me.
    Take a trip though history to find out why Windows has the 
largest market share. It is because they provided a great, open 
operating environment at a reasonable price that runs on commodity 
hardware, and ironically, opened up the operating system to 
developers through vehicles like MSDN and developer API's and tools. 
That is precisely why OS/2 faltered, and the Mac never lived up to 
its potential. Mac has still not opened up the developers! If Scott 
McNealy, Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs would spend half of the time 
they spend bashing Microsoft in developing and marketing their own 
product line, they would be have much better companies. Have you 
ever heard these guys?! It is amazing!
    Again, I STRONGLEY urge you to end this now by accepting the 
proposed settlement. This suit does not, in any way, reflect on 
capitalism and a free market society. Actually, it reflects quite 
the opposite.
    Keith Olinger


From: LHSig@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish to voice my opinion that the Microsoft settlement should 
be concluded with no further litigation.
    Bill Clinton spent more time and money investigating and 
prosecuting Bill Gates than he did Osama Bin Laden!!!!!!!!!! Look 
where he got us. Consider all the millions of PC users who have 
benefited from Microsoft's products.
    Linda Hood Sigmon
    5805 Woebegone Trail
    Maiden, N. C. 28650-9038


From: Dennis Santoro
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02  10:55am
Subject: Comments regarding the 2 proposed settlements in the 
Microsoft cases
    To the Department of Justice and the States Attorneys General,
    I am writing in submission of comment regarding your proposed 
settlements in the 2 cases regarding Microsoft corp. I beleive I am 
entitled to submit comments as per the Tunney act of 1974 and wish 
you to consider the below as public comment on the cases.
    With regard to the proposed settlement in the antitrust case, 
unless the remedy actually adresses a consumer's ability to buy any 
computer from any manufacturer with a choice of any OS (Linux, Unix, 
Windows) preconfigured on the machine and MS is prohibibited from 
using its market position to make that difficult or to impose 
penalties on manufactures who wish to do so, MS's position and 
behavior will not be changed. No remedy that fails to address this 
issue will be successful. Further, similar measures should be 
enacted to address bundling of productivity software (office suites) 
to allow competition form Corel, Star Office, IBM (Lotus) and 
others. The fact that purchasers have only the MS office suite as a 
choice in most cases (as per terms usually included in the Windows 
OEM license) means that most other suite vendors are precluded from 
much business de facto.
    The bundling issue should also be addressed but, in my opinion, 
with the exception of the browser and e-mail client choices, most of 
the rest is a non issue. But MS should not be allowed to further 
bundle IE and Outlook unless other choices are also provided and the 
APIs are sufficeintly published and documented so that other 
competitors can easily offer seamless integration.
    All remedies should be monitored and enforced by a group 
actually capable of doing so. MS has proved by past behavior that 
they are untrustworthy in terms of following the letter or spirit of 
agreements they enter into. Penalties should be clear, easy to 
exercise and easy to trigger. The proposed settlement does none of 
that. Nor will simply requiring MS to provide a stripped down 
version of Windows. Furhter, MS's attempt to become the arbitor of 
identity on the internet (Passport) should be precluded so that MS 
cna not extend their monopoly to the internet itself using the 
strength of their current monopoly. As for the consumer suit, while 
the fund amount and it's distribution to schools is quite 
appropriate, these funds should be given without restriction. MS 
should have no input into the spending of these funds. Schools 
should be able to use these funds for infrastructure (wiring, PCs) 
software from ANY vendor, OSs from Apple, Linux vendors, Sun, or MS, 
etc. These funds should be placed in the hands of a group that can 
not, and will not, be connected to nor influenced by MS. MS should 
not have any representatives on the board responsible for the funds. 
It should be made up of credible education professionals and 
computer professionals unaffiliated with vendors and manufacturers. 
The charge to the board should be to help schools meet the needs the 
schools believe they have in the best way possible for the school in 
question. It should NOT be for the purpose of promoting MS products 
in the schools.
    Thank you for your attention and feel free to contact me if you 
have any questions.
    Denn Santoro
    Resource Development Associates
    Offices in the United States and Germany
    Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and 
non-profits since 1982


From: Henry Cimetta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is good for everyone, but most important to the 
US economy and financial markets.


From: gjohnson@ground.fedex.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Government,
    Please spend your time and my money hunting terrorists rather 
than Microsoft.
    Thank you,


From: Kevin Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24976]]

    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to you, in accordance with the Tunney Act, to let 
you know my comments and feelings regarding the Microsoft 
    I strongly feel that this case has gone too far, has lost the 
interest of the nation, has caused quite enough economic and 
legislative disturbance, and feel it is time for it to come to an 
    As a consumer, I feel Microsoft did nothing wrong. In fact, I 
shudder to think what position we might all be in today had 
Microsoft not risen to the challenges in this ``information age''. 
They are visionary and we are all fortunate that they have hired the 
best and brightest minds to help keep America at the helm of this 
burgeoning, new world. In fact, I believe they helped create this 
new world. Punishing them for it is senseless, useless and harmful.
    The suit again Microsoft has caused harm to our economy beyond 
calculation. A company as large as Microsoft can change the whole 
climate of the economy when it falters. And it has faltered over the 
past two years not due to quality of product or due to quality of 
service or due to inability to continue to innovate. It has faltered 
due to this useless lawsuit.
    It is time for it to be over. After the events of September 
11th, this country has greater things to worry about than this 
lawsuit. Also, the economy is suffering and needs the shot in the 
arm that an unencumbered Microsoft could provide.
    Let's finish this thing. Let's get on with the business of being 
Americans and with the business of innovation, creation and design. 
The world suffers while we ponder and clog the courts with this 
useless matter.
    As a consumer, as a stockholder, as an American, I want this 
thing to end.
    Thank you very much for your time and for hearing my thoughts.
    Kevin D. Edwards
    302 West Sixth Street
    Benton, IL 62812


From: jay@comter.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are a small consulting company in the Fairfax, VA area 
managed by a group of very enterpreneur US citizens--Comter Systems 
Inc. We also do have issues with the bigger players in the field but 
I have to say salutations to them for getting there. I feel the same 
for Microsoft. They started out like everyone else and had worked 
their way to the top and I cannot believe a bunch of jealous 
competitors can create this level of aggravation and insult to them.
    Hope you settle with Microsoft ASAP and thus they can move 
forward and take us to the next generation of Technology and keep 
US, the leader in Technology like they did last time.
    Thank you


From: dale janus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:01am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    January 2, 2002
    Dear Justice Department:
    I would like to add my comments to the proposed settlement of 
the microsoft antitrust case.
    I feel the DOJ has not done enough to end microsoft's monopoly 
position. The remedys in the settlement will not change the way 
microsoft does business. The DOJ has already been down this road 
with microsoft before and the remedys imposed in the past have done 
nothing to change their business practices.
    I feel the settlement should be thrown out or at least re-
negotiated so that microsoft changes their business habits.
    The penalty that has been imposed and is going to be paid to 
school districts is so overtly designed to gain sympathy for 
microsoft that I question the skill of your negotiating team. Every 
person with school age children in the country are going to clamor 
for their share of the penalty pot. Microsoft has used their vast 
fortune to create allies among the general public by paying their 
fine to schools instead of the DOJ.
    The current settlement is not enough. The microsoft monopoly 
will continue.
    Dale Janus


From: robert e tolleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a citizen in Nashville, Tennessee, who is tired of this 
continuous dragging out of the Microsoft case. From the beginning I 
have felt that proving the consumer has been harmed by Microsoft 
over the past 10 years was hard to comprehend. Today a consumer can 
own a computer for less than $1000 with an operating system of 
software under $100 that ten years ago cost thousands of dollars and 
only corporations could afford them. Also by Microsoft pioneering 
this home computer industry many other companies have emerged and 
grown tremendously on the surge of this new industry. If competitors 
have been harmed, I am not sure they would have been in business if 
not for the early innovations of Microsoft. That brings us to today 
and a few states funded by special interest groups who will benefit 
at Microsofts demise are continuing to pressure the politicians in 
thier states to refuse to accept a seettlement hashed out by the 
Federal Government and other states. We are at war as a country, and 
I feel that to prolong this case is embarrassing and rediculous in 
the scope of priorities for our country now.
    Please use whatever means legally to discourage these states who 
do not represent the average consumer by continuing this case. IT IS 


From: Tina Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:04am
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to let you know my feelings on this proposed 
settlement. I believe it is a tough but fair settlement and should 
be approved. It is not in the best interests of consumers or our 
economy to prolong this litigation further. To do so would stifle 
further innovation.
    Dan R. Johnson


From: rbonine@millermartin.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02  11:05am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    This e-mail is sent in accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974. 
It is my personal opinion as a 17-year veteran of the IT industry 
that the proposed Justice Department settlement is completely 
useless, and it will not hinder Microsoft's attempts at monopoly in 
any way. Microsoft's monopolistic actions since the settlement 
proposal have only intensified; witness the early relase of Windows 
XP to try to avoid an injunction, and the continual push toward 
usage of Microsoft Passport, which has potentially serious 
consequences to not only software companies, but to all e-commerce. 
For the long-term health of the IT industry in specific and the 
American economy in general, I strongly urge that the DoJ settlement 
be completely rejected and that much harsher measures be put into 
place. I would like to further suggest that the original judgement 
(the breakup of Microsoft into seperate companies) be upheld.
    Thank you.
    Roger L. Bonine
    Information Technology Manager
    Miller & Martin LLP
    Chattanooga, TN
    (423) 785-8393


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    AS A concerned citizen I uge the DOJ to end the political 
persecution of Microsoft and do all things necessary to make the 
propossed settlement become reality.
    A George BUSH Supporter
    Robert D Strohl


From: The SHADOW know
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The public perception is that more money was spent by the 
previous administration fighting Microsoft than was spent fighting 
terrorism. True or not, perception is everything, so it is time that 
the Microsoft settlement be approved. We need to put this behind us 
so that we can concentrate on America's real enemy--international 
    Dr. Ray A. Gaskins
    Hampden-Sydney College
    Hampden-Sydney, Va
    Ray Gaskins

[[Page 24977]]

    ``The world's a little poorer for a soldier died today. We'll 
hear his tales no longer for he has passed away. He was just a 
simple soldier who was sworn to defend his home, his kin, his 
country, and would fight until the end.'' Anonymous


From: Harry LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a professional software developer with 13 years experience, 
and have used both Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems, 
middleware, development tools, and applications. I am deeply 
disturbed by the proposed settlement, both for what is included and 
what is left out. I exhort Judge Kollar-Kotelly to remedy these 
    What is included:
    1. A five-year limit. Given that Microsoft is riding the wave of 
ill-gotten profits accrued over a decade of illegal monopolistic 
practices, five years isn't enough to restore a marketplace of 
normal competition, even if the settlement didn't provide mechanisms 
(noted below) for Microsoft to hamper the function of the 
implementors of the proposed settlement. It seems to me that the 
enforcement period should be at least twice the duration of 
Microsoft's criminal past, and perhaps certain structural elements 
of a sound settlement should be enforced in perpetuity.
    2. Microsoft's voice in the technical committee. Since when does 
a criminal choose its guards? Given the pervasive influence of 
Microsoft in the market, and their persistent monopolistic behavior, 
it is dubious at best that their chosen representative, and the 
representative who can be vetoed by that person, will fully have the 
interests of the public at heart. Watchdogs chosen by Microsoft, on 
the Microsoft payroll, and working fulltime in secrecy on the 
Microsoft campus, do not meet any reasonable criteria for 
    3. Moreover, crafting in a feature that allows Microsoft to 
dispute costs gives Microsoft a handy built-in mechanism for 
sandbagging. I quote: ``Microsoft may, on application to the Court, 
object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On 
any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to 
demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be 
entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application 
(including reasonable attorneys? fees and costs), regardless of the 
Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall 
expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was 
without substantial justification.''
    Given the vast wealth Microsoft has illegally obtained from the 
public through its monopolism, setting enforcement expenses as 
``reasonable'', and giving Microsoft a mechanism for subpoenaing 
their watchdogs (thus distracting them from their true duty) is 
asking for trouble. Microsoft's bearing of the ``expenses'' of such 
activity will be trivial, and more than compensated by the implicit 
protection of any future monopolistic behavior concealed from the 
technical committee--not to mention that it lets Microsoft run out 
the clock at a very cheap cost. The technical committee should have 
a free hand, and an unlimited budget underwritten by Microsoft.
    4. Microsoft has implicit control over who is permitted to be 
their competitor. Again, I quote: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business...'' Why does Microsoft get to apply 
the litmus test of the ``authenticity and viability'' of who is 
permitted to see their API's?
    Another quote: ``Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer 
Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related 
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate 
with a Windows Operating System Product. ``
    Doesn't Microsoft have control over who participates in their 
proprietary MSDN program, and don't they set criteria of 
participation (eg, nondisclosure, etc)? This is one of the very 
mechanisms by which Microsoft has implemented their monopolistic 
strategy. Such APIs should be *freely distrubuted* to the *public*, 
not sold to the few acceptable competitors that Microsoft 
designates, on terms of their own setting. Allowing Microsoft to use 
their MSDN mechanism and decide which business is authentic and 
viable is too weak. It specifically gives Microsoft a mechanism to 
exclude open source developers, academics, etc.
    What is left out:
    5. Recompense. Microsoft has illegally profited for years from 
their monopolistic practices. That money rightfully belongs to the 
public, and should be returned to the public. It should be fairly 
straightforward to measure the average profitability of their 
nearest competitors vs. Microsoft's illegally enhanced profit 
margins, thus determining how much Microsoft illegally profited. 
Perhaps this money could be funneled into educational grants for 
computer hardware and (completely non-Microsoft) software for 
elementary, secondary, and college tuition. These funds should 
easily cover the expense of putting (for example) a Linux computer 
on the desktop of every student in public schools, state 
universities, etc.
    6. Punitive damages. Over and above returning the ill-gotten 
gains to the public, Microsoft should be penalized for their illegal 
    7. Document formats. Microsoft enforces its monopoly by keeping 
their file formats proprietary. Since Microsoft chooses which 
competing operating systems to support with their applications, 
companies who have been monopolistically pressured into buying 
Microsoft applications (eg, MS Office) are trapped on the Microsoft 
platform by their inability to migrate their (proprietary and 
copyrighted) corporate data to other operating systems. This is key. 
Microsoft applications compel users to stick with Microsoft 
operating systems, this perpetuating their monopoly. The only remedy 
would be to open up their file formats (or possibly to require them 
to provide fully and publicly documented import/export features that 
allowed users to migrate *all their data* (including ``objects'' 
such as forms, reports, etc.) to competing products, and to likewise 
recreate data from compliant import files (even if created by 
competing products). In other words, the public deserves a way to 
get all their data out of Microsoft products, and Microsoft should 
pay for providing such a mechanism.
    I've heard the rationale that punishing Microsoft would be bad 
for the economy. First of all, that's no excuse for failing in the 
duty to enforce justice. Secondly, the leverage Microsoft has in the 
economy was acquired through their crimes, and the judgment should 
not perpetuate the consequences of their crimes for fear of rocking 
the boat. Third, monopolists have always been bad for the economy, 
the contrary arguments of monopolists notwithstanding. And finally, 
the amount of money from recompense and punitive damages, pumped 
back into the economy in such a way as to stimulate competition in 
the computer software field, should provide an enormous economic 
    American citizens are counting on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to 
faithfully perform her solemn duty to uphold justice by preventing 
this weak and flawed proposed settlement from being implemented, and 
properly addressing the true interests of the United States of 
America by returning the ill-gotten wealth from Microsoft to the 
public from whom they stole it, further penalizing Microsoft 
financially, and crafting structural remedies to prevent Microsoft 
from ever being able to commit the same crimes again.
    All America is counting on you, Judge. Do your duty.
    Harold C. LeBlanc
    1300 Powderhorn Terrace
    Apt. 11
    Minneapolis, MN 55407-1669
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin 


From: alton.g.declaire@gm.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I think the goverment has spent enough money and time to 
litigate the Microsofr Settlement and should close this case.
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft


From: Robert Cahall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:08am
Subject: Microsot settlement
    The court should accept the settlement and put this matter 
behind us for the best interests of all of us
    Bob Cahall

[[Page 24978]]


From: Retha Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do believe this is a settlement that does benefit the 
consumer. Microsoft has always built a better mouse trap and the 
market place has reflected it. It is time to get this behind us and 
get the economy moving again and Microsoft is a key player in that 
process. We do not need a few to benefit we need many to benefit if 
we are going to move forward and this settlement certainly helps.
    Retha Bennett


From: Vance L. Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I disagree with the Final Judgment against Microsoft, it is much 
too harsh.
    Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
    - Vance L. Ray


From: MMRHART@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement as it presently stands. There has 
been to much intervention by others in the developments made by 
Microsoft. Where would America be today, if it were not for 
Microsoft and its wiliness to bare the cost of development? 
Inventions should be encouraged, not discouraged by law suits, etc.
    Joseph W. Hart
    Naples FL


From: Bill Colburn and Susan Marcolina, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely in favor of the Microsoft settlement that has 
been reached between the DOJ, several states and Microsoft, and I 
urge the Judge in this case to accept those terms, reject the 
outrageous claims of the states who have refused to settle and close 
the case in it's entirety.
    Please stop your horrendous waste of our tax dollars in 
harassing and prosecuting one of the most admired companies in 
America, one that will be a key to getting our economy out of the 
dumps, and get back to the serious business of pursuing terrorists, 
murderers, gangsters and others of their ilk. Get back to the real 
work of serving the people of the United States instead of 
continuing to waste the taxpayers' money on private vendettas driven 
by failed competitors of Microsoft and a few Attorneys General who 
think a tough position on high profile case will help them get 
national name recognition and either re-election when their terms 
expire or a nice spot on a national party ticket in the next 
presidential election.
    Thank you.
    William Colburn
    420 Datewood Court NW
    Issaquah, WA 98027


From: Sheldon Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it seems outrageous to me that the government has spent so much 
time and money prosecuting microsoft when there are other problems 
that are so much more deserving of the money and effort.
    you spent years chasing ibm amd accomplished nothing but making 
lawyers rich.
    you broke apart at&t so that we all pay more money for less 
phone service and cannot identify which vendor is at fault when 
things 'do not work'. while microsoft is not perfect, they do 
producr a consistant predicable product that fully integrated those 
option in the pc operating system that i care to use.
    i do not look forward to the govenment getting me somethig 
better that i will end up paying more for and spneding hours 
installing it.
    it ain't broke--why do you have to fix it.
    let sun and oracle fight their own battles.
    the american consumer has been well served by microsoft- better 
than the doj serves us in this case
    spend your time on terrorists and organized crime--do something 
    sheldon katz


From: Cecily Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:11am
Subject: MS Monopoly comment
    I was appalled at the settlement for the regular suit, and for 
the settlement for those states that held out for more. The remedy 
is little more that a slap of Ann Lander's proverbial wet noodle. 
And, as Apple has rightly pointed out, the schools provision puts 
the fox solidly within the hen house. Microsoft engages in 
monopolistic practices. So we hand them a great opportunity to take 
over one of the few markets of its alternative in operating systems? 
I don't need a doctorate in electrical engineering or jurisprudence 
to see this lacks any common sense, nor does the punishment fit the 
    Microsoft's disdain for any government remedy for its 
monopolistic tendencies was revealed at about the same time as the 
regular settlement was anounced. They knocked all users except those 
using Microsoft browsers and email programs off their MSN.com 
internet provider service - which is generally paid for by users. A 
free subscription to the MSN ISP is often given for a limited time 
with new Windows machines, but after that free period, people have 
to pay to get the use.
    Of course there was a great uproar and they were forced to back 
down, but the very fact that they'd pull such a egregious stunt at 
the very time they were to learn of their court penalties shows that 
they MUST be closely monitored.
    Their new operating system doesn't show much of an improvement 
in the monopolistic tendencies although it's made some grudging 
hooks so different web browsers can be used. And it has grudgingly 
allowed PC makers the option to sell machines on which the Windows 
operating system is not installed.
    And they say they will offer open systems? And they say they 
will follow/allow existing standards? That must be why the cell 
phone standards are being set by all except Microsoft which is 
offering its own? Unhunh, and I have a bridge to sell you.
    Cecily Wood,
    Technology Planning and Support
    (Although my views are part and parcel of my job, they may not 
represent the school system's.)


From: M. G. Fred Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is long overdue for the settlement, prolonging this 
action to please special interests especially AOL (the most consumer 
unfriendliest ISP and the most expensive)will only hurt the 
consuming public and cost the taxpayer an other fortune. Let 
Microsoft get on with it's service to the consumers worldwide, it 
will help our exports, provide jobs, and help our ailin economy.
    M.G. Fred Kick


From: HPotler@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18am
Subject: Settlement
    Please settle this matter as quickly as possible.
    Harold Potler


From: Jpricecpa@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:19am
    Judy L. Price
    Judy L. Price, CPA, Inc.
    1616 West Street
    Redding, CA 96001
    530-246-4115 fax
    3861 Country Estates Drive
    Cottonwood, CA 96022
    530-347-4558 fax

[[Page 24979]]


From: Jack Burleigh
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I've read about the Microsoft settlement on the Department 
website. The settlement seems entirely fair and reasonable to me and 
I urge the Department to finalize the settlement. In my humble 
opinion, it is time for this litigation to end.
    Jack Burleigh


From: Nbpcman@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should stand in its current form. Those who 
desire to reject it and force the breakup of Microsoft do not 
understand economics. If Microsoft truly does not serve the public 
market because of security flaws in its products or other factors, 
then innovation on the part of competitors will bring about desired 
changes. It may take a little longer than a government lawsuit, but 
ultimately the free market will be served and government 
intervention will not be needed. Microsoft became as large as it is 
because its products were innovative and made computers easier to 
use by the general public. They may have gone in a direction that 
discouraged competition, but I personally have not found many 
products that can compete -- and I have looked. Linux may be the 
catalyst that causes the corporate shakeup the Clinton 
Administration looked for in the original lawsuit. We do not need 
the expense or use of DOJ resources for additional action against 
    Abbott Barclay
    Richmond, Virginia


From: Rudolf Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement accepted by the DOJ is fair and 
reasonable and should be the end of the litigation. We have spent 
far too much already on this vendetta of a few competitors and it is 
time to end it.
    Stop this fruitless litigation and let Microsoft and the US get 
on with life. The very people (the public)that the litigation was 
supposed to have been protecting have NOT been complaining so who is 
this really about?
    Rudolf Forster


From: Betty H meng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sun and Oracle need to compete fairly with Microsoft in the 
market place not in the courts--anti-trust doesn't apply when there 
is no way to put a price tag on createtivity and entrepreneurship--
    Let the customers be the jusdge and the jury--We know how to 
make our decision--
    These 9 states should not be granted a license to sue--Let them 
all create competively and we be the judge and jury and decide--
    Mrs Betty B Meng (78 years old and experienced )


From: Dewire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is hard for me to understand my government's instance on 
trying to punish an American company that has become a world wide 
standard for excellence. How does it help consumers to prevent a 
company from giving away features with their product? True, it hurts 
their competition because their competition did not think of it 
    I as one American Tax Payer, am tired of the government wasting 
my money going after a tax paying American Company.
    Foreign government encourage and support their industries...only 
in America do we try to tear down what our citizens create and 
develop...under the banner of being too big and powerful. Other 
countries laugh at our Justice Department for doing their work for 
them in trying to eliminate our own American powerhouses.
    In Japan Bill Gates would be declared a Living National 
Treasure...In Great Briton he would be knighted....here you are 
doing everything you can to destroy him!
    Come to your common senses and enjoy and hail what Microsoft has 
    Robert and Carol Dewire
    3640 Bal Harbor Blvd. # 511
    Punta Gorda, Florida


From: RKlein8198@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    can you imagin the mess the computer industry would be in if 
microsoft had not set a standard that every could follow. boot the 
politicians out out of the process.


From: Dixie DeRoshia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft's right to innovate and feel the Federal 
Government has overstepped it's duty to protect and it has in fact, 
harrassed a private concern unnecessarily.
    Dixie Coster-DeRoshia


From: William Wertz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


From: Bob Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:25am
    I concur in the agreement in the Microsoft Case
    Robert Blake Jr
    13 Ethel Avenue
    Peabody, MA 01960-530813


From: RPPVLP@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There needs to be a prompt resolution of the cases involving 
Microsoft. I am a substantial user of various interrelated Microsoft 
products which I use to conduct my daily business. Those products 
currently meet my needs very well. I cannot afford to have their 
interdependency shatttered!


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:27am
Subject: Case settlement
    This case needs to be settled as soon as possible. With the 
state of the economy, another company does not need to be damaged by 
the interference of the government and people who are not dependent 
on this company for their living. We should not punish people for 
being brilliant and having innovative ideas.
    Martha Jane Walker
    3663 Briar Creek
    Beaumont, TX 77706


From: richard tighe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please- Let us settle the Microsoft case, and not continue to 


From: Fred Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion the Tunney Act covering the Microsoft Settlement 
is fair, equitable and in the public's interest. I think that this 
law should stand, all the litigators should go chase other fire 
engines and our country should get back to building our economy 
instead of tearing it down. We should not attack corporations based 
on the fact that they have been successful. If a company can't 
compete it can't make it up by litigation. We should let the best 
continue to innovate and, unshackled, push the frontiers of 
technology for the betterment of all people.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely yours,
    Fred C. Benson


From: Leroy E Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to complete the settlement as proposed. It is fair 
and balanced and removes futher uncertainty over an entire industry. 
This should be beneficial to the stock market and to business 
generally. Leroy E. Gardner


From: Rick Deno

[[Page 24980]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put this litigation behind us and let the economy finally 
take a step forward. Microsoft's customers made Microsoft a 
monopoly, NOT Microsoft. If we chose some other alternative, I want 
to be the one doing the choosing, not the Government.


From: Hrenforth@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    For nearly four years, my voice has been instrumental in the 
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned 
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite 
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft???s 
competitors, the federal government and nine states finally reached 
a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and my voice is more 
important than ever.
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the ???public 
interest.??? Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting 
to use this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don???t let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    The Department of Justice will then take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in the public record for the District 
Court to consider.
    Please send your comments directly to the Department of Justice 
via email or fax no later than January 28th. Whatever your view of 
the settlement, it is critical that the government hears directly 
from consumers. Please take action today to ensure your voice is 


From: Clark, Nick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is good to see that some of the states are finally getting on 
with settling their dispute with Microsoft. Although I've never felt 
indebted to Microsoft for the career I'm currently in I do however 
feel that it was their foresight and technology that pushed a 
technology market so far that eight years ago I finally found what I 
wanted to do for the rest of my life. I love working with their 
product! If it weren't for all the dumbass hackers making it harder 
on consumers Microsoft would probably be an even bigger company.
    It's a shame for the states that are still in dispute over the 
current settlement agreement but you can never please everyone all 
of the time. I know alot of the issues that are still being mulled 
over are purely political and it's sad that nobody will remember the 
idiots still attacking Microsoft come the next election. Microsoft 
got to where they are because of their innovative ways. Yes, 
business deals have been made and they do need to play nice with 
their desktop and server operating systems. As for the market that 
either competes or works with Microsoft, they too need to develop 
better technology. If they didn't get behind in the first place we 
probably wouldn't even be going through this right now. Thank you 
for your time.
    Nick Clark
    IT Manager/Consultant
    Kerber, Eck & Braeckel LLP http://www.kebcpa.com/>
    Springfield, IL 62701


From: Katy Ainsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:37am
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please note that I am a voting citizen of the United States of 
America. I am writing this letter in response to the settlement 
agreement with Microsoft. I feel this settlement to be in the best 
interest of consumers, the country, and especially the economy. With 
the downturn of the economy of the United States since the 9-11 I 
feel it to be of utmost importance to get this mess behind us and 
keep the economy stable. America is a capitalist country and we 
should do all we can to keep it this way.
    Thank you.
    Katy Robertson


From: LNLEVERETT@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This suit by the federal government against Microsoft has not 
been in the public interest. Microsoft has plenty of competition and 
prices on all things electronic continue to drop. Please settle this 
case so Microsoft and the country can get on with it.
    F. Lynn Leverett
    7604 SW 178 Terrace
    Miami, Florida 33157


From: rewone.nineoh@verizon.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:39am
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    You must force Microsoft to place a warning sticker on any 
software that requires the user to first install the Microsoft 
Internet Explorer browser before the said software can be installed. 
I use the Netscape browser and they wanted me to install MS IE 
before I could make greeting cards! I declined and asked for a 
    William Kenney
    Jamaica, NY


From: levinej@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I believe it works in 
my favor as a customer.
    Joann levine--


From: Mary Selvick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:40am
Subject: settlement
    I hope you can forward this to the senators; I have had it with 
the government sticking its nose into ``honest'' companies! Leave 
Microsoft alone! The settlement was fair!
    What I would like to see is a committee come together to 
investigate the ``Pork'' that all the senators push through and the 
tax payers have to foot the bill!
    I am for term limits and get those damn bloodsuckers out!


From: MVL240Z@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates did not force me to buy his products. I evaluated his 
products and am glad I do not have to hire a consultant to make 
various software programs work seemlessly together. My productivity 
has increased because I do not have to waste time figuring out 
various software programs. Clearly, Gates and Balmer have been 
agressive and at times arrogant (Balmer).
    Give them a fine, tell them not to do it again but let them get 
on with business and offering new products. Microsoft may not be the 
most innovative but they certainly make things work better. Do you 
use Word and PowerPoint? I am considering switching from Quicken to 
Microsoft becasue Quicken constantly crashes and according to 
reviews has been surpassed by Microsoft Money. Netscaape and AOL's 
internet browser are inferior to Microsoft Explorer.
    Give Microsoft credit for turning on a dime and realizing that 
the internet would change our lives. Do not be dictated by 
competitors who think a lawsuit is the only way of ``beating'' 
    Stop wasting more time and money and let's move on. America 
should concentrate on being an economic superpower that will further 
globalization to help wipe out individuals or groups like the 
Taliban and bin Laden.

[[Page 24981]]


From: MSullivanMaram@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: Dept. Of Justice
    FROM: Mary Ann Sullivan 65 Park Ave.
    Williston Park, NY 11596
    I am pleased with the DOJ ruling on Microsoft. I do not believe 
that it would be in the best interest of the American economy to 
break up Microsoft. If other states want to go ahead and and sue 
Microsoft, I wish them luck! They won't succeed. We need a company 
like Microsoft to keep the American economy strong and progressive.
    There are idiots today who hate Microsoft and don't even know 
how to use a computer!


From: CpiCfo@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attack on Microsoft because they built a better mousetrap is 
unwarranted and outrageous.
    I have been a computer user and analyst since my entry into the 
workforce some thirty years ago. In 1966, I was first introduced to 
programming (FORTRAN) as an engineering student. I can tell you I 
had no interest following this experience in being a computer geek! 
I left school and served in the USAF, with Viet Nam service. I 
returned to school on the GI Bill and obtained my BA and MBA. In 
this process, I was exposed to GPSS, Wang calculators and other 
cutting edge (at that time) computer models. They still left me with 
wanting someone else to do my modeling.
    Graduating with my MBA, I then became a systems and financial 
analyst for a Bank holding company designing major banking systems 
(we were the first to install ACH in Florida and mini-computers in 
the bank branches) and using timeshare models. As computers moved 
away from the ``big box'' towards the ultimate ``personal 
computers'' I became more of a hands on user.
    I became a CPA working for a major firm and then as the #3 
financial spot with a fortune 500 which became a LBO and then 
liquidated. After the liquidation, I went into the work force as a 
consultant/CPA with my only staff being a PC under DOS. Without my 
computer background, it would have been extremely difficult for me 
to grasp what was going on in the PC--DOS environment-with seperate, 
unintegrated Lotus, WordPerfect, database and other applications. It 
was only several years later that I finally migrated to Windows 
which I initially resisted because I did not want to retrain myself.
    When I found what Windows and the integrated applications could 
expensive packages that I had perviously been working with. Because 
of the systems created by Bill Gates--I have less office staff, am 
more efficient at what I do, am willing to do my own modeling and 
correspondence, email, internet access, etc. etc. etc.
    I am at a loss as to what you think Bill Gates and Microsoft 
have done to harm me--the consumer! As I understand it, the major 
issue against microsoft revolves around their internet access system 
(MSN) which I do not use. I am an AOL user. And while I have found 
some conflicts which are an irritant--I do not consider them 
actionable. I still use AOL (my kids would not let me move) and have 
figured out how to defeat whatever conflict (perceived or real) 
existed. Note: AOL Instant messenger is another example of an 
innovative creation which for the life of me I do not understand why 
someone who creates and builds a better mousetrap (and is the only 
one who has and everyone wants it) needs to be punished for doing 
so! If you want someone to attack--why don't you look at some of the 
tax software firms--Why do I have to pay so much for software from 
them? Their fees are excessive in my opinion. SETTLE THIS ACTION 


From: Ralph Askam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of settleing the microsoft case as has been 
proposed in the final sttlement agreement.
    I think enough time and money has been wasted on this matter and 
that every one would be better off withit's settlement.
    Thank you
    Ralph F. Askam M.D.
    4120 Nobhill Dr.
    Muskegon.Mi. 49441 231 780 2252


From: Robert Hess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm writing to you in regards to the proposed settlement of the 
anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
    I have several points of view on this matter.
    As a (minor) shareholder, I feel too much time and money has 
already been spent by the company and the taxpayers on this matter. 
The company has agreed to abide by the proposed settlement to which 
the federal government and nine states have also agreed.
    As a long-time personal computer user, I have never been forced 
to utilize Microsoft products. Over the years, I use, and have used, 
different operating systems, internet browsers, word processing 
software, spreadsheet programs, etc. In some cases, the Microsoft 
product was the best choice for me, in other cases, it was not...but 
I have a choice.
    As an American taxpayer, I'm tired of the taxes I pay being 
wasted on a handful of lawyers making their careers on long, drawn 
out bureaucracies such as this.
    It is time for this matter to be settled.
    Robert Hess
    Wyomissing, PA


From: Ted Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think that Microsoft should be able to conduct business as it 
sees fit. Microsoft has announced its plans all along to the 
competition who thought that their grip was enough to see it 
through. When reality struck they called foul. When they had 
Microsoft on the ropes and tied up in Federal court they forged 
alliances themselves trying to become the ruler of the computer/on-
line worlds. To what avail? Allow Microsoft to continue to move 
ahead in its product development and desktop integration. Don't 
punish them for their innovation but rather allow the market place 
to dictate the direction of the marketplace and may the best 
companies win!
    Ted Michael


From: JRKRAWIEC@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to make my voice heard regarding the Microsoft suit. The 
suit against Microsoft was a huge mistake from the beginning. Since 
when is our government in the business of suing successful 
businesses, because the competition says it is unfair.
    I believe that the settlement which has been reached is fair to 
all parties. The government has never made a case showing where 
consumers were harmed by Microsoft. In fact, the exact opposite is 
true. Microsoft has made it possible for more and more consumers to 
benefit from use of computers and the internet.
    Please end this costly suit at once and move forward with the 
settlement already agreed upon.. If Microsoft had an unfair 
advantage, shouldn't the competitors have been benefitting from the 
tough times of Microsoft this past few years (due to this 
litigation)? The opposite has occurred. We have all seen our stocks 
in all of the internet companies go down the tube. Look at the 
numbers. This decline began almost in direct correlation with the 
Lawsuit. Now consumers truly have been harmed, but not by Microsoft, 
but by our own Government which will not leave the free market free.
    Please do the right thing now.. Thank you for your time...Joyce 


From: Hjbaron@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone-The settlement is reasonable to all 
parties-Stop wasting money on more litigation pushed by wealthy 
special interest groups.!!!!
    Julie Baron


From: MEIJERA@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice,

[[Page 24982]]

    As we all know, our economy is suffering and we are now in a 
recession. If the case against Microsoft is resolved soon, I think 
our American public will gain the confidence it needs to begin 
investing in our great economy again.
    Because Microsoft has brought so much to this world in software 
technology, they should be applauded and not obnoxiously criticized 
for their efforts. Sure, they should operate accordingly and be 
punished accordingly, but enough is enough. Let's get on with it and 
start this economy rolling again.


From: Edgar Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to me the states are only interested in getting 
revenue out of this law suit similar to the tobacco lawsuit. I don't 
believe the public interest has anything to do with it. Microsoft 
should be free to continue to innovate as they've done in the past 
which has made vast changes in our lives as well as helped the 
economy to grow.
    Ed Lambert


From: Margaret Murdock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think you should accept the Microsoft settlement that has been 
reached by the DOJ and the various 9 states who wanted something 
different than the original DOJ agreement. Microsoft has paid enough 
for being a successful company. As far as I am concerned the whole 
thing has been a miscarriage of justice.
    You learned all your computer use/knowledge at tax payer expense 
and with an Information Specialist standing by to get your computer 
straightened out from any screwups you did. We tax payers have not 
had that luxury.
    When I bought my first computer, for my son to use at college, 
it cost more than I was able to save in one year, and then when I 
got it home, I had to figure out how to put DOS 3.3 (for which I had 
to pay extra) on it. Then I had to pay another $150 for a word 
processor, which I had to install on it, in the hopes that it would 
all work together. AND, I did not have the luxury of any one to help 
me if it didn't all work OK. And if I broke it--to bad.
    Microsoft has made the purchase of a computer to use a pleasure, 
not the nightmare it use to be. All the software that you need to do 
the things that you want your new computer to do--is on it, and runs 
correctly!! More than any other company, Microsoft has made 
computers able to be used by anyone in the world. It is no longer 
only for the computer savvy few. Even you would not be able to use 
your computer if it were not for Microsoft making it easy enough 
that you can simply point and click your way around different 
    Don't let the special interest groups stop the settlement.
    Margaret Murdock


From: Joe Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the lawsuits brought against Microsoft are for 
the most part politically (self interest) motivated. Obviously 
Microsoft has been very successful and, as a result, has become very 
big. However, it is still important that the software industry be 
allowed to have a definite leader in a free market. I think that 
other companies should be guaranteed the right to compete with 
Microsoft, but they should not be guaranteed success! In general, I 
believe that the current proposed settlement with Microsoft by the 
DOJ is more than fair to the parties which have filed charges 
against Microsoft.
    Joe E. Johnson


From: Jim Applebaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir or Ms.,
    I believe the settlement of the DOJ suit against Microsoft 
should be approved as soon as possible.
    Thank you,
    Jim A.


From: DnBMcKee@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58am
Subject: Micro Soft Settlement
    My wife Billie and I both believe that the whole Microsoft trial 
has been unamerican and a total travisty. We grow up being taught 
that as Americans the sky is the limit. We are told that hard work, 
original thinking and attaining goals are the keys to success. 
Apparently not so if we take the example of the Microsoft affair as 
an indication of how it works. There isn't a single company in the 
U.S. that has done more for the American Image than Microsoft, and 
it is a world-wide perception. They should be rewarde, not 
    Billie & Don McKee


From: Lyle McDermed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft is being punished for being 
successful. There seem to be several Microsoft wannabees that have 
an inferior product that want to see Microsoft pay through the nose 
for good business practices that the wannabees do not have! Since 
capitolisim allows for and encourges success, I fail to see why the 
federal Justice Department and the different States are trying to 
destroy Microsoft. Success should breed additional success and not 
    Lyle K. McDermed


From: Ken (038) Audrey Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel the settlement is fair and should apply to all the 
states involved.
    We are not sure why the states should get anything, Microsoft 
has given all states computers and training.
    Audrey Smith


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02pm
Subject: End The Legal Obstructions
    Senator Hatch and Microsoft's Utah competitors should get a 
life. The court has ruled and we should all be moving on.
    Richard C Bean


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I think this foolishness has gone far enough, too far in fact. 
If you can't see that these lingering nine states are in ``it'' 
strictly for the money than I have a bridge I want to sell you after 
this foolishness is concluded. We cannot control the success of one 
company, i.e. Microsoft, and the failures of others by taking money 
from the successful one and giving it to the slackers in an attempt 
to even the playing field. This is absolutely stupid, and My 
Government must act more intelligently than that. This entire 
``suit'' thing (designed by the previous Clinton Administration who 
when faced with what to do and had no intelligent way to turn, sued) 
makes me sick. Wake up Justice Department!!!!!!!
    This email comes to you from US Citizen:
    Gerald Hartz
    19 Diller Line Road
    Chesterville, ME 04938


From: Frank (038) Debbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the settlement. Stop further frivolous 
litigation and let the computer industry get back to business.
    Thank you,
    Frank Hobin
    409 S. Beech St.
    Winnsboro, Tx 75494
    (903) 342-9222


From: Thelma Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:04pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
    Re. the Microsoft Settlement:
    With regards to the new Microsoft settlement, we would like to 
add our thoughts to what so much of the American public thinks. We 
agree with the settlement and find it a tough but beneficial 
settlement for all concerned. We believe that the interests of all 
the parties are well served by this proposal and we urge you to 
finalize this

[[Page 24983]]

settlement as soon as possible. As a consumer, we think the terms 
are fair to us as well as to the aggrieved parties. Please do not 
delay this proposal, Let's get this behind us, and keep the American 
economy moving!
    Thank you.
    Thelma and Nelson Stevens
    Barrington, IL.


From: Luiz De Lima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The litigation against Microsoft has already damaged the economy 
perhaps more than terrorist acts. I think it is time to settle the 
case and move forward to resume growth.


From: Allan Kalar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Yes, Microsoft has some problems, but delaying the settlement is 
not the way to solve them.
    Microsoft's biggest problem is that their operating systems 
aren't reliable. No amount of legislation or court action is going 
to fix that. The marketplace will. Linux is currently replacing 
Windows as the system of choice for web sites because it's more 
robust and cheaper per node. Hardly the scene you'd associate with a 
monopoly situation. Don't let the special interests whine their way 
into the procedings. Settle this thing now so the world can get on 
to something important.
    Allan Kalar
    Viking Waters (not connected with Microsoft)
    PO Box 1975
    Elma, WA 98541--
    Don't put a question mark where God put a period.


From: Arden Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off of Microsoft's back.
    Please end your never-ending, apparently obsessive, interest in 
the Microsoft case. You've done enough. Send your people after 
someone--or something--of consequence. Prosecuting a business, 
simply because the business is successful, provides a large group 
of--otherwise (possibly/probably) unemployable--attorneys with 
ample, overpaid, employment and on-the-job training. But it serves 
very little, if any, meaningful purpose. Microsoft does more good 
for the United States of America, by sheer accident--in one week, 
than your organization does, with hundreds of overpaid bureaucrats, 
working around the clock, in 20 years.
    Buy your staff some pool tables and foosball machines, and keep 
them busy with those interests and activities. By giving them 
anything else to do--you are taking the risk of doing much harm. I 
am proud of what Microsoft has done for society--and for the entire 
world. I am not at all proud of what you people do--either for a 
living or as a potential benefit to society. In fact, what you do 
for a living is kind of embarrassing. Try looking for some honest--
and meaningful and productive--work. There must be something that 
you can do.
    Arden Warner
    11038 Quail Run
    Dallas, TX 75238-3712


From: Larry Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10pm
    I work in the travel industry. We're struggling to stay in 
business and it will be a tough year in the best of scenarios.
    In the interest of our nation and economy, I ask that the case 
against Microsoft be closed.
    Larry Cox


From: Marty McCafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed with the settlement. It seems to just 
bandage the problems with Microsoft's monopoly powers. Microsoft can 
easily use the delays in court to damage competitors.
    Microsoft's illegal advantages have striped the computer 
industry of real innovation. A simple look at the computer related 
technology growth in the 80's compared to the 90's to present 
Microsoft era shows we are stagnate. Microsoft has choked off 
innovation so only the monetary strong can attempt to compete. This 
severely limits innovation.
    For instance, In the 80's a $300 Commodore 64 could play music 
and simple voice recognition and used the latest technology and most 
people could afford it. An Amiga computer was about $600 could 32-
bit multi tasking operating system, play digital music, speech 
synthesis, video capture and has hundred of affordable graphic and 
sound programs and was capable of hi speed modem access. The PC 
controlled by Microsoft has just recently been able to offer these 
abilities mostly because of the cost to do business with Microsoft 
and the ability of Microsoft to starve a small innovator out of the 
market using there illegal monopolistic power.
    The only way to really help the consumer is to break Microsoft's 
up into competing Microsoft companies. The vacuum left behind would 
be filled with lots of innovative competitors keeping prices down 
and new ideas and technologies affordable. We would see the computer 
growth of the 80's of a scale of todays PC market.
    Microsoft's biggest market strength is they can ``include'' 
products in there OS that a person would not purchase but may keep 
someone from purchasing a competitors product. Netscape is one big 
example, Explorer was an inferior product and few would download it, 
so Microsoft included it in the OS. Now a user could use the 
inferior product because it was included and they may be less likely 
to download the competitive product. Microsoft's recent Media Play 8 
is following the same game plan. There are better products out there 
but users are less likely to download them because they have a 
``similar'' product included with the OS.
    Why invest in competing with Microsoft with their ability to 
force new computers to have there competing products ``integrated''?
    The computer industry could really used more competition in the 
OS and application fields to bring down the cost of good products.
    Regards, Marty
    Marty McCafferty
    Network Administrator
    Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.
    Phone: (847) 273-4327 Fax: (847) 273-4127
    E-mail: marty.mccafferty@nissei.com


From: LRoddis@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: Without Microsoft products, I would be 
unable to have my business and help my daughter with school. 
Microsoft made products that work for the private person and are 
affordable. The case against this innovative company is ridiculous 
and is hurting our economy. I wish to express my disappointment in 
the governments continual pursuit of Microsoft. Please put an end to 
the legal action. Microsoft has been a model in creating technology 
that is affordable to so many people.
    Thanks for providing a means for me to express my opinion
    Linda Roddis
    St. Paul, MN


From: maryasara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This was never really a DOJ case. If there was a problem with 
Microsoft's competition, they should have spent their own money and 
brought a civil case. How about a DOJ case against the competion for 


From: James Morss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It's time to settle and get on with business. We need companies 
like Microsoft to stay healthy and competitive. Microsoft has given 
the US a big competitive edge in the tech market and we need to help 
them not punish them further. Let's move on.
    Jim Morss
    206 174th Pl. NE
    Bellevue, WA 98008


From: Annegstout@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24984]]

Date: 1/3/02  12:23pm
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am writing to let you know that I am in favor of the 
settlement of the Microsoft dispute. I believe that it will be for 
the good of our economy and our sense of fairness and freedom to 
accept the settlement and get on with the growth of our 
technological businesses.
    Anne G. Stout


From: CHASTU@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Continued interference by government in the free market is 
unwanted and not what we are electing politicians to do. They are 
only hurting economic recovery. Get off the back of business.
    C.S. Griffith, Ponte Vedra, Florida


From: John, Christine, Cailyn and Jared Cattell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete the proposed settlement as soon as possible. I 
strongly believe this is in the best interests of our country's 
freedom to innovate and to help our economy pull out of recession. I 
believe these lawsuits were motivated by Microsoft's competitors who 
are trying to ``rob'' Microsoft of their rewards for producing 
outstanding products that have propelled our technology growth over 
the last decade.
    Again, please do not stand in the way of an economic recovery 
and freedom to innovate with new products. Complete the proposed 
settlement now and let's move on.
    Thank you,
    John Cattell


From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My thougts on the subject case.
    I am glad the subject case is coming to a close. I understand 
litigation of this magnitude takes time, however, in this case you 
took way to long in reaching a final decision.
    By not coming to a quicker decision it affected the economic 
well being of many developers waiting in the wings for a decision. 
Small to mid-size organizations are still the backbone of our 
economy and you under-cut their ability to act and/or react. Most 
organizations do not have the cash that a Microsoft has, therefore, 
quicker decisions are necessary. I agree Microsoft should not have 
been broken up.
    I am disappointed that you are allowing them a long-term free 
hand in entering the education market. The long-term effects will 
favor Microsoft and put competition at a disadvantage. Other 
remedies would have been more realistic and would have encouraged 
long-term competition.
    Punishment was in order and you fell short.
    Bill Williams


From: LAPUNE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:23pm
Subject: settlement of governmebt lawsuit
    Come on!! Lets get this thing behind us and encourage the 
lawyers to work on something that really is worthwhile.
    Microsoft has been a boon to world economy. They shouldn't be 
punished! Microsoft deserves to be #1.
    Microsoft's competitors should spend their money $$$ on 
improving their businesses, not on lawyers.
    Al Boden


From: Vince Yelmini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the midst of these uncertain economic times, the last thing 
the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a 
few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    This settlement is in the public's interest: it is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. It is good for 
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
    Please settle this and clear the court system!
    Sincerely, V.A.Yelmini


From: Fred Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle. The DOJ had a poor excuse to start with 
and hammered the tech sector with the threat of breakup. Settle as 


From: Catherine Ansbro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:28pm
Subject: comments
    I am concerned about the proposed ``penalties'' on Microsoft. 
These so-called penalties do not really punish this company for its 
monopolistic activity over many years. In fact, they make it 
possible for Microsoft to continue its monopolistic activities in 
the years to come. This is simply not acceptable.
    Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet 
Web Browser market. This is more apparent to a software developer 
who works within Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects 
involved in the operating system itself, specifically, development 
with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of '.Net' technology 
marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) to Internet 
Explorer, and the operating system. The newer versions of Windows 
have the Internet technologies wrapped in them. This is an obvious 
attempt to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Browser market. 
Whether or not they supposedly did it 'on purpose', the result is 
the same: a monopoly.
    Specific training programs such as MCSE (Microsoft Certified 
Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) 
are geared towards maintaining the internet browser market by 
gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who must pay for courses 
and tests, and so become personally invested) to use only Microsoft 
    One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on 
the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Of course not, because they 
didn't have the chance to because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly 
and its unfair treatment of would-be competitors. This lack of 
competition is still hurting us all, at the level of individual 
users who do not experience freedom of choice in the products that 
are made available to us, and at the level of businesses who could 
have made different and better products and considerable profits 
during these years that Microsoft was an illegal monopoly.
    Hardware manufacturers is hiding the price of the operating 
system on new computer systems. And they are not permitted to sell 
the hardware separately from the software. This is fundamentally 
    The legal resolution to this matter should include the following 
demands on Microsoft:
    (1) Microsoft products--or products of any software 
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer vendors. 
Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice, and other software 
manufacturers will have a chance to compete. Installation of 
software selected by the user can remain free. For example, I prefer 
to be able to buy a linux operating system installed on a new 
computer. Why should I have to also pay for a Microsoft OS that I do 
not want or need? And why is the price of the Microsoft OS & 
Software not published?
    (2) All Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    (3) The specifications of Microsoft's past, present and future 
document and network formats must be made public, so that documents 
created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other 
makers, on Microsoft's and other operating systems. This is in 
addition to opening the Windows Application Program Interface 
('Windows API', the set of ``hooks'' that allow other parties to 
write applications for Windows operating systems), which is already 
part of the proposed settlement.
    (4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software Engineering 
Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well as insight 
into their development process for Operating Systems. SEI level 3 is 
required by the United States Government for software companies that 
supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999). This 
certification was created to protect the government from software 
manufacturers that had no software development process. This same 
certification should protect the average consumer, AND insight into 
the Software Development

[[Page 24985]]

Process for creation of their operating systems would give software 
manufacturers a chance to keep up with Microsoft.
    (5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST be 
made public prior to the release of the operating system by a 
minimum of 6 months. This is VERY important when dealing with future 
web enabled embedded devices. It also helps the average consumer 
because they get a better product. Judgment in this case needs to be 
fair to the consumer, because future cases will look toward this as 
a precedent. Please take these steps to ensure that Microsoft is 
truly penalized from its years of monopoly activities--including 
harsh financial penalties that will resound throughout the computer 
industry--and include the recommended steps above to ensure that 
Microsoft is never able to do this again.
    Catherine Ansbro
    236 Pawnee
    West Lafayette,
    Indiana 47906


From: Fdcdyc@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the Microsoft settlement is fair. Lets get this over 
with. There must be more important things to spend our tax dollars 
on. FDCartwright.


From: branden--hoopes@peoplesoft.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have no business affiliation with Microsoft. I am simply a 
very happy consumer of their products. I have used Microsoft and 
competing products for years and I firmly believe that Microsoft's 
dominance in the market is the result of a superior product. 
Computer software has never been so easy to use and has never been 
so integrated.
    On the other hand, I am not blind to the mistakes Microsoft has 
made. However, I believe the remedies agreed to by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice are more than adequate. The states that have 
chosen to not accept the agreement between nine states, Microsoft, 
and the Department of Justice are states in which Microsoft's 
largest competitors are based. These states are rejecting the 
settlement because large corporations in there districts want 
Microsoft removed as a competitor, NOT because there is a public 
outcry by consumers over how they have been mistreated and 
overcharged by Microsoft.
    Please accept the proposed agreement and let Microsoft survive. 
The alternative remedy proposed by the other nine states would 
cripple Microsoft, demoralize their employees, and ruin any 
incentive the company has for continued innovation of their 
products. It would be a mistake far bigger than the collapse of 
    Branden Hoopes
    A happy Microsoft consumer


From: Harry E. B. Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe there should be no governmental action of any kind 
against Microsoft. I have used a wide variety of Microsoft software 
and hardware since 1992. For the moderate amounts of money these 
items cost, I have received immense value. These products have made 
computing and use of the internet much more efficient and enjoyable. 
Instead of penalizing Microsoft, the U.S. Government and the 
American people should praise Microsoft for its many innovations, 
which have greatly improved American productivity and provided 
thousands of good high-tech jobs for Americans.
    The anti-trust case against Microsoft is ludicrous--to prove an 
anti-trust violation, the government must prove harm to consumers, 
and it has failed to do so. From personal experience, I know of no 
such harm. Besides, anyone who does not like Microsoft has always 
been free to buy Apple products. Thank you for your attention to my 
    Harry E. B. Sullivan


From: JEBenecki@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First I offer my relevant credentials. My wife and I are retired 
residents of South Carolina, owners of 400 shares of Microsoft and 
users of Microsoft products in our home computer and previously in 
our careers.
    I am very grateful for the productivity gains Microsoft has 
given all sectors of our economy through the products it has made 
available to the consumers at what I believe have been reasonable 
prices. Microsoft was also a leader in providing products and 
systems that are both compatible and integrated for ease of use by 
the consumer.
    On the other hand, Microsoft was overzealous in pursuing market 
position in the past and the public has a right to expect some 
adjustment in Microsoft's behavior.
    I believe the settlement agreed to by nine states is fair and 
sufficient to control Microsoft's business directions in the coming 
years. I encourage the Justice Department to use its influence and 
power to bring the other nine states into agreement with the 
settlement as well.
    Thank you for your attention to my views.
    John E. Benecki


From: Connie Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a school board member of the McFarland School District. We 
are a small school district in Wisconsin and face a difficult time 
continuing to provide a world-class education because of climbing 
costs and a limited tax base. Funding for computers, hardware and 
internet access must be balanced with the other basic educational 
and staffing needs in our district.
    However, in order to help prepare our students for the jobs, 
businesses and the everyday world they will face after graduation, 
our district's ability to provide current technological equipment 
and training is essential. The proposed Microsoft settlement will 
help small schools districts like McFarland provide the technology 
our students need to meet the challenges they will face in the 
coming years. The settlement not only provides the technology, but 
also provides the training so teachers can effectively use the 
computers in the classrooms.
    Please support the proposed settlement which establishes an 
independent foundation to distribute technology funds, computers and 
software to those districts in the most need of these essential 
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Connie Hutchison
    5608 Chestnut Lane
    McFarland, WI 53558
    (608) 838-3728


From: Francesco Gallo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
From: Francesco P. Gallo
    216 Hitching Post Dr.
    Wilmington, DE 19803
    Assistant Attorney General
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    I would like to express my gratitude, as a small consumer of PC 
products, to the US Attorney Office that in few months has put the 
basis for an end to a saga that has attempted to destroy an industry 
leader for so many years, and certainly not favoring the consumers 
and the economy.
    Although I'm not a technician, I have perused the documentation 
on the Antitrust Case, and I'm very happy to express as consumer few 
comments for the Tunney Act.
    It seems appropriate that the remedies invoked by the Proposed 
Final Judgment and the Competition Impact Statement are a reasonable 
solution to this long war, giving competitors an opportunity to 
integrate products and forcing Microsoft to reveal its source code, 
without stopping Innovation. In addition, Microsoft would be under 
federal monitoring until 2008. It is time for the few States 
opposing this settlement to dedicate more of their resources to 
support the economy and the innovation that will enhance the 
    Francesco P. Gallo
    CC:Francesco Gallo


From: BOB52545@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement of antitrust 
claims against Microsoft Corporation. As a retired lawyer, I believe 
that settlement of these claims is in the best interest of the 
taxpayers and the

[[Page 24986]]

American consumer. Far too much money has already been spent 
prosecuting questionable claims (although I suppose Judge Jackson's 
Order, to the extent upheld by the Court of Appeals, has laid to 
rest the questionability of these claims).
    I don't believe that the consumer was ever really damaged by any 
monopoly power wielded by Microsoft, nor do I believe that any 
competitors were seriously harmed by ``monopolistic practices'', if 
any, of Microsoft. Having a superior product is not against the law 
nor should it be. I seriously doubt that any true unregulated 
monopoly exists in the US today, nor has one existed here for a long 
    It is time to move on to something that will truly make a 
difference in the lives of Americans and leave successful businesses 
    Robert G Currin, Jr,
    225 Springlake Rd,
    Columbia, SC 29206


From: Harold (038) Dorothy Clinesmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I feel that it is high time to settle this litigation 
and get on with business. It serves no purpose to keep chipping away 
at a company that has had such good success at innovations that make 
the computer easier to us by the average person. Why keep punishing 
a company that has done such a good job just because other companies 
didn't have the ability to do the same if they had had the expertise 
to do the same first. Lets get on with the business of being a 
country that rewards companies and people for doing things that 
helps the economy of this free country. Please end this as soon as 
    Dorothy Clinesmith


From: tbrown@orionconsulting.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my support of Microsoft and request a 
swift and fair completion to their litigation. I am both a consumer 
of Microsoft (MSFT) software and in a business that relies in part 
on MSFT's success. As a technology professional, I am keenly aware 
of the importance of fair competition in our field. Unfair 
competition or monopolistic behavior is very damaging to us as it 
slows the development and adoption process of new and better 
technologies. To this end, I support the prosecution of MSFT and the 
success the DOJ has had in getting MSFT to stop their unfair 
    On the other hand, there is an overwhelming danger to our 
industry if this settlement is drawn out or if the punishment is too 
severe. MSFT has created some of the best software products on the 
market today. They create millions of jobs and drive billions of 
dollars in the U.S. economy. My company and thousands of others are 
working with MSFT everyday to expand the technological lead the U.S. 
enjoys over other countries. I rely on them to be successful in 
selling their software so I can sell consulting services and make my 
own company profitable. Punishing them unfairly will hurt many 
innocent people, like myself and my employees.
    The settlement with MSFT should be focused on assuring they 
adhere to open standards for their software and open commercial 
arrangements for potential resellers or licensees of their 
technology. The technology industry in the U.S. has tried in vain 
for years to create a sanctioning organization that everyone 
subscribes to--fairly. If there is a single greatest opportunity for 
the DOJ to provide a legacy out this huge prosecutorial effort, it 
would be in the mandate for the creation of a technology standards 
    Companies like MSFT, AOL, Oracle, SAP, HP, Sun, etc would all be 
required to be involved in and fund this organization. This would 
allow the technology industry to police itself with oversight by the 
government. Our economy has been hurt enough by recent events. Our 
industry is in its worst slump in 10 years. Please do what you can 
to reverse this decline, not make it worse.
    Thomas J. Brown
    Chicago, IL


From: William Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a shareholder of Microsoft as you might have guessed. I 
favor the settlement, of course.
    There is, however, another aspect which I find particularly 
disturbing. That is the transmission by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to Judge Kotar-Kelly of the results of their hearings 
favoring modification. If ever there was inappropriate interference 
by the legislative with the judicial branch this is it. The threat 
that the Judge will not get a promotion to higher judicial office 
unless she follows their recommendation is palpable. I really hope 
you can do something about that.
    Bill Browning.


From: Ross, Joyce
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: MSFT
    Dear Sirs ... I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
is both reasonable and fair. We need to allow for innovative 
research and expect that the best will rise to the top.


From: RCllnd@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Clinton Administration's going after 
Microsoft was not a good thing to do. Microsoft is a very good 
company and has made many people successful in their business. Leave 
it alone. Let the settlement that has been agreed upon stand.
    Sincerely yours,
    Rosemary Cleland
    Bishop, Ca 93514


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:37pm


From: JBWeed@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my support for the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I think it represents an acceptable way to resolve the 
    Jeff Weed
    11320 Grenelefe Ave. N.
    White Bear Lake, MN 55110


From: Theodore Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The DOJ and majority of states have reached an agreement with 
regard to Microsoft. I believe this settlement was in the best 
interest of consumers and American business. We as Americans must be 
concerned about our global competitiveness and further litigation of 
this case will further increase the risk of damaging the competitive 
edge we have in computer software. Therefore, I strongly recommend 
proceeding with this settlement agreement.
    Theodore W Nelson
    2812 Shamrock Drive
    Allison Park, PA 15101


From: Jim Dowling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting
    Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting my tax 
dollars as well as the tax dollars of other tax payers
    Jim Dowling


From: Danoe38111@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft/ Settlement in the Courts under the Turney Act; 
The Contribution that Microsoft has made to the Computer Industry 
over the Years, has been phenomenal. Todays Computer expertise by 
millions would not have happened if there had not been a system that 

[[Page 24987]]

some continuity to it, and kept it as simple as possible.
    Therefore. I hope that the powers to be will accept the present 
settlement that is being offered, and get on with teaching more 
people to utilize the computer and its many many advantages. Please 
settle now, this has gone on for 4 years too many.
    Thank you for listening.
    D Noe.


From: Eddie Bunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The previous Clinton administration seemed to attack big 
business as bad for us private citizens when a lot of folks either 
work for those type of companies or related industries. They went 
after tobacco, they went after the firearms, and they went after 
Microsoft to name a few. They said they were doing it for us, but 
most Americans saw through this ruse and realized it was a way the 
politicians could bring in more money, through fines, to support 
their spending habits. It wasn't about us, it was about money, 
money, money for our government. Ultimately, it had a very real and 
negative effect on our economy... Enough is enough. When Microsoft 
was attacked, it seemed to mark the beginning of our economic 
downturn. I thought it then and I believe it now. Why? I'm not sure, 
but it falls under weakening consumer confidence. I don't work for a 
big company. I'm a small independent businessman. But my feeling is 
that the economy is trying to turn around and if this Microsoft case 
doesn't continue to drag on, and is settled soon, it will be a big 
boost to the American psyche which in turn will help consumer 
confidence. We sure could use that right now.
    W.E. Bunn


From: Jim Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice my opinion regarding the settlement. I 
think the settlement is tough but fair. I'm glad to see that this 
matter can be settled and that we can all just get back to the 
business of making this country a leader in the world. Get on with 
it and let the economy recover!


From: Barbara Winter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Department of Justice
    Re: Review period for Microsoft Antitrust case
    As a consumer of Computer software for 20 years, I wish to 
express my dismay that special interest groups-primarily Microsoft 
competitors-are attempting to derail the Court of Appeals settlement 
agreed upon in November of 2001. This settlement is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy. Unfortunately, a few special interests are 
attempting to use this review period to derail the settlement and 
prolong this litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic 
times. The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Don't let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    In the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to provide software 
developers the necessary access to the code that enables them to 
create programs that interact with Microsoft platforms. The new .NET 
platform has raised more excitement in world-wide software developer 
communities than any previous operating system, in large part 
because Microsoft is encouraging developers to innovate, and 
supporting them in that effort regardless of their allegiance or 
affiliations. This freedom to innovate is essential to American 
values. It's good for competition, good for consumers.
    Please take a balanced and fair look at how the proposed final 
settlement will affect CONSUMERS. That is the group anti-trust laws 
were meant to protect.
    Thank you,
    Barbara Winter
    13872 NE 60th Way
    Redmond, WA 98052


From: Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:44pm


From: Chris Mayhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing this country needs at this point in time is a 
prolonged randomizing conclusion to the Microsoft anti-trust case--
let's finish it with the proposed settlement as it stands.
    After seeing how decisively the American public reacted to the 
horrific acts of September 11, do you (the DOJ) really think that 
the people of this nation would support Microsoft or any other 
company if we actually thought that their products were designed and 
built to our detriment? This must be a time of rebuilding, 
economically as well as spiritually, to show the terrorist community 
that they have not succeeded in their efforts. Further litigation 
against Microsoft would very likely lead to even more stagnation in 
the economic markets, and this would surely be viewed by some as a 
direct effect of the recent terrorist acts.
    Certainly people everywhere, and in particular in the United 
States, have become more productive through the use of Windows, the 
Internet, and software applications that run on the Windows 
operating system. To overlook this economic trend of the past 
decade, is a significant oversight.
    And finally, to anyone who has not developed software it is 
unthinkable that a manufacturer would release a new product, such as 
an operating system, that ``didn't work well'' in the marketplace--
it is an economically-driven decision with sharp competitors (such 
as AOL and Sun Microsystems in this case) doing all that they can to 
take that marketshare. The number of hours and test cases examined 
in order to be sure that Windows works well with all of the popular 
software products is staggering. Integrating software such as an 
internet browser with the operating system, as in this case, is done 
in order to raise the quality of the software. This occurs because 
common code that is shared between the two software applications 
only has to be written once, tested once, documented once, 
manufactured once, and sold once. If these same two applications 
were not integrated, all of these production facets are doubled. 
Eventually support costs double and the price of the software 
increases. It is hard to imagine how this latter approach is 
ultimately to the benefit of the American public.
    Chris Mayhall, Applied Digital Photography, LLC


From: Bill Gish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    With the job losses, Income losses for most citizens, Stock 
market down; it is time that when a settlement is reached, for it to 
be honored and the individuals who profit, who already have more 
income and assets than the average person stop prolonging the final 
settlement to enrich their pockets, get votes in their states, to 
hold offices that they are unable work and reach agreements with 
other government departments. Any system that can't reach an 
agreement is shorter time than this should refund their pay for 
ineffectiveness. People are losing faith in the over all government. 
The auto industry doesn't have compatible parts for interchanging 
with other autos, neither the appliance industry, or for that matter 
the human body. Every company tries to increase their market, look 
what your organization has allowed the Super Stores to do the small 
business person. Stop this delay now.
    William D. Gish


From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft--Settlement


From: Phillip Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, Complete the Microsoft Settlement. Please settle with 
Microsoft to allow Microsoft and the whole electronics industry get 
on building their industry. Let the market place decide the winners 

[[Page 24988]]

    Phil Young
    San Diego, CA 92109


From: Alexandra Stocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Justice Department:
    Please end the litigation against Microsoft once and for all. As 
a taxpayer, consumer, and small business owner, I object to our 
government intervening in the free market and persecuting a company 
such as Microsoft, one of America's great success stories, whose 
only crime was to be too successful.
    Alexandra Stocker
    Alexandra Sanderson Stocker
    Sanderson & Stocker, Inc.(R) (formerly Sanderson Capital)
    2333 N. Triphammer Rd. #201
    Ithaca, NY 14850
    (607) 257-5117


From: JD Loden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:52pm
Subject: Resolution
    Microsoft has made the technology industry more competitive, and 
has demanded that it's competitors achieve excellence. When the 
automobile was invented, could we've prevented car makers from 
designing cars with four wheels similar to the first car?
    Obviously we need a platform, and from this platform competitive 
products and services will surface.
    D. Comprehensive Business & Personal Financial Planning Services
    Naples, FL 941-430-0104, FAX 941-403-9987 EMAIL 
    Investments offered through Jefferson Pilot Securities 
Corporation-Concord, NH


From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust suit
    I feel this litigation has taken up valuable time and money and 
should have been over a long time ago.
    Microsoft have been a wonderful intivator. I do not see any gain 
for anyone in pursuing this case 1 day further.
    Judy Sawyer


From: NKozimor@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to commend our government on finally putting this 
settlement behind us! I thing that Judge Jackson was way out of line 
with his decisions and I applaud the new judge who is showing some 
semblance of common sense!
    Nick Kozimor
    Mansfield, Ohio


From: DBC1998@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: msft settlement
    I think this settlement is fair & i congratulate doj for it.


From: Richard Beckert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi, I am writting to express my support for the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I believe it is in the public interest, it 
addresses the monopoly maintenance charge upheld by the appelate 
court and it is fair and reasonable. While addressing the anti-
competitive behavior, the settlement still allows Microsoft to 
innovate and compete with other companies.
    In these tough economic times, this is one uncertainty that can 
be put behind us. Imposing tougher restrictions on Microsoft could 
cost more jobs and cause more uncertainty in the high tech industry. 
I believe this settlement is in the best interest of the consumers 
and the public. I only wish that all States could have been on board 
as oppose to holding out for their own self centered political 
    Richard D. Beckert
    11620 127th. Ave. N.E.
    Lake Stevens, WA 98258


From: Normakorn@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I would hope that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their efforts 
in developing cyberspace. Thay have done so much, and success should 
not deter them from marching forward in their plans to better this 
computer age.
    normakorn@aol.com Norma Korn


From: Charles A Schuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement


From: JTDDDS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing to encourage the that all litigating states be 
required to accept the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    This case has drug on entirely too long and now is only hurting 
the economy. The states who are not accepting the settlement are 
politically motivated by Microsoft competitors in their respective 
states and are not considering the national interest.
    John T. Darling, DDS


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: settlement
    We should leave them alone!


From: Clyde Serda, CC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Why is the goverment ordering Microsoft to do just what they 
sued them for? Giving away software with each computer or giving 
away software to public schools. I still leaves out the consumer who 
purchased the software. if you can't get it right just drop 
it....Clyde Serda


From: Reve Carberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice,
    I believe it is in the interest of the public and the economy 
for the case against Microsoft to be settled as proposed in the 
agreement crafted with Microsoft by the federal government and nine 
    Reve Carberry


From: Douglas Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think your judgment was fair and just for all!


From: LEJ254@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm


From: Jim Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    bold>It's time to settle this case and move on to something more 
important !/bold>


From: Elizabeth Grandy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:08pm

[[Page 24989]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2001
    I think it is about time this ridiculous lawsuit against 
Microsoft is settled once and for all. As far as the public is 
concerned Microsoft did not do anything detrimental to the public. 
The crybaby companies that cannot compete are just trying to get 
money from the best software company ever built. Companies like 
Microsoft should be free to make their product anyway they see fit. 
If the public want to buy the product they will and if not they 
won't. The only reason Microsoft has a monopoly is because they are 
the best and everyone wants their products (including the US 
Government!). This whole suit should have just been thrown out of 
court instead of costing Microsoft thousands of dollars in attorney 
fees and court cost and the taxpayer also. Please settle this with 
as little harm to Microsoft as possible. The suing states and 
companies should be the ones paying not Microsoft!
    Gary and Elizabeth Grandy


From: John Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    John L. & Patricia A. Carey
    4072 Penshurst Park, Sarasota, FL 34235 941-378-8666 
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter concerns the settlement that was reached earlier 
this fall in the Microsoft case. We think that it was a mistake for 
the case to have been brought about in the first place and, at this 
point, the settlement should be accepted, and the matter put to 
rest. No company should be penalized for creative thinking.
    This settlement punishes Microsoft more than enough. Microsoft 
will be forced to disclose information about the internal working of 
Windows, making it easier for computer companies to remove Microsoft 
programs and install similar programs from other software vendors. 
Microsoft will also be forced to streamline Windows so that other 
programs will run as well as their own in the operating system.
    Additionally, Microsoft will be obligated not to seek 
retribution on any of the firms that originally sued it.
    Finally, Microsoft will submit to oversight by a government 
committee to ensure that it complies with the terms of the 
    Microsoft has agreed to all of these terms in order to shift its 
resources away from legal strategy. We hope that the settlement will 
be swiftly finalized and implemented.
    Thank you.
    John & Pat Carey


From: NIK9@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:12pm
    To Whom it may concern:
    I believe it is wrong for the government to attack private 
business. I also believe the Microsoft finding in mar/Apr of 2000 is 
directly responsible for the recession we are in now.
    Please quit pursuing this company. They have done nothing but be 
a great company, responsible for untold jobs in this country.
    Very Truly Yours
    Greg Loomer


From: Edwin(038)phyllis Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the government and microsoft should accept the terms of 
the settlement. if microsoft is indeed a monoply , we need more like 
it. where else can i get a product that me and my family enjoy and 
use at work and home every day, that last for years, and costs less 
than a hundred dollars.
    edwin evans
    631 ne washington
    lewistown,mt 59457


From: Mike Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Sirs:
    I have been an independent systems consultant for the last 20 + 
years. I have seen IBM screw its customers with predatory activities 
and with providing Products did not work very well at all. Yet they 
were left unscathed.
    Now you have an entrepreneurial company, Microsoft, that has 
attempted to make A product that is easy for the relatively 
unsophisticated end user that will provide him with all the tools to 
use his computer effectively. (That's more than IBM ever thought 
    Yet, for their ability to meet the market effectively, you have 
persecuted them in the name of the people. Your track record is less 
than stellar in protecting the people. Would you like to revisit MCI 
and ATT. The courts broke up ATT and now we have very little logic 
In our phone systems. I can call someone from a pay phone and pay $7 
or $8 for a two minute call.
    That is working in the best interests of the consumer? I suggest 
NOT. Of should we talk about the tobacco settlement fiasco? Ask the 
people in your office over 50 years of age what the slang was for 
cigarettes. May be we called them ?cancer sticks? or even ?coffin 
    That was over 50 years ago when I was a teenager. I knew they 
were deadly then. Let Microsoft due what they can to make end user 
use of computers more effective. Ultimately, That will benefit our 
society more than a bunch of restrictions and penalties will. Just 
get the government out of this mess without spending a ton more in 
our tax dollars. It would be far more beneficial for our tax dollars 
to go for paying our military, or replenishing our arms inventory.
    Michael Springer
    1800 East Denison Road
    Naperville, Illinois 60565


From: dinshah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear SIr,
    As the Federal Government and the state governments except nine 
states have agreed the settlement, the case should be decided on 
this settlement basis. To me it is not prudent to waste our 
resources at the time of the severe recession in US economy and 
World economy with unstable political climate.
    Thank You,
    Dinesh Shah


From: john tabar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:14pm


From: Bill Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please drop all of the lawsuits against Microsoft immediately. 
This has all been a bogus witchhunt from the start. Let us get on 
with trying to make money instead of spending time and money 
defending lawsuits that are already totally outdated by the speed of 
progress in the technology business.
    Bill Wallace
    Box 10354 Midland, Tx 79702


From: Thomas W. Culbertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want doj to leave Microsoft alone.


From: larry schaffel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a proud American and Microsoft shareholder of long standing, 
I am highly distressed by the continuing effort by a small, self-
interested group of companies--of which, incidentally, I am also a 
shareholder, to continue harassing the efforts of Microsoft to 
continue innovating and providing a great service to the public and 
the economy as well as its shareholders. I urge those responsible to 
accept the recent settlement reached with the justice department and 
many states so that we can get the economy and technology industry 
back into a growth mode in 2002.


From: Irv Alpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    To quote Mark Da Cunha, is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the 
Department of Justice insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph 
Hitler who kills people in

[[Page 24990]]

concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts down a 
neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A predator is 
someone who initiates the use of physical force. Microsoft has 
pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case for predatory 
acts can be made against the Department of Justice-who seeks to 
violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its property--than 
for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is accused of.
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the 
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive 
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors. 
Free competition is not some Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal 
where all competitors end up with an equal market share of a given 
industry. Whether in sports, or in business, the whole point of 
competition is to beat your competitors-even to the point of having 
them going out of business. Bigness should not be confused with 
monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is not 
a crime.
    Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of 
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop 
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by 
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired 
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is 
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only 
governments possess.
    Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy 
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power 
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft 
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale 
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the 
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's 
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its 
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's 
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no 
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place. 
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you 
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS next April.
    Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away 
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when 
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's 
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the 
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes, 
but their rights are left untouched.
    Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the 
application of the political principle of individual rights to the 
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules 
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the 
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether 
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not 
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
    Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these 
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of 
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which 
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the 
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the 
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded 
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant 
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough 
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft 
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such 
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting 
burning coals into his eyes.
    By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of 
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws 
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's 
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property 
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the 
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as 
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of 
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple 
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a 
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic 
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute 
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade 
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it.
    From start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more 
than a process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as 
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of 
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan 
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history 
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``. . .the effective purpose, the 
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the 
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and 
efficient members of our society because they are productive and 
    The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator; 
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in 
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust 
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who 
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think 
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them 
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill 
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the 
American way of life: that of a free, moral, rational, capitalist 
    Irvine Alpert
    Founder, OnviaGuides
    Executive Vice President
    Onvia, Inc. (www.onvia.com)
    1260 Mercer Street
    Seattle, WA 98109
    (206) 373-9541 direct
    (206) 890-9471 mobile


From: Old3putter@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Only the public will be hurt by imposing harsh penalties on 
Microsoft. Microsoft has enabled users (individuals) to get the most 
out of their computers. The various states Attorney Generals are not 
thinking of computer users. Microsoft developed the software should 
not be penalized. It is a proprietary. Any other software 
manufacturer had this opportunity and, they still have the 
opportunities, to develop their own software. Hurting Microsoft will 
certainly not be in the best interests of the individual users.


From: raymondw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please do all you can to settle the Microsoft settlement as 
quickly as possible. In these trouble times we need to do what we 
can to move forward, and not tie up our resources in court battles. 
For the records, I do own Microsoft stock, but I use an Apple 
computer. Thanks Raymond Wolf


From: Troceen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement, and support this 
action being completed expeditiously.
    Dan Troceen


From: Augenstein, Rob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the anti-trust case against Microsoft for 
almost four years now and believe that Microsoft did nothing wrong. 
The bottom line is that consumers were not harmed. As a user of 
Microsoft products, and previously of Netscape Navigator, I actually 
benefited. When I was using Navigator, Netscape improved and 
expanded the product due to the competitive pressure from Microsoft. 
To make a switch in Internet browser compelling, Microsoft had to 
make their own improvements. Now that I've switched to Microsoft, I 
wouldn't go back to Netscape. What no one involved in this case 
seems to see is that people like me benefited because we had choices 
and the products available to us were improving at a rapid pace.
    It is not necessarily a bad thing if a company has monopoly 
power and then tries to use it. It is most certainly a good thing in 
fact if a broad base of consumers will benefit. Unfortunately, Judge 
Jackson did not see that people like me benefited from Microsoft's

[[Page 24991]]

actions. In fact, I have actually been harmed since the ruling by 
Judge Jackson. With Microsoft on the defensive, the pace at which 
significant new products have come to market has been slow. I think 
the browser was the latest new product genre--and that was 5 years 
ago. So I haven't had as much new software to play with as I did 
before. More importantly, the ruling initiated a long slide in the 
stock market that still continues. Since my investments in the stock 
market have declined in value, I have not made further investments 
in things for my family like a new car, house or computer. And since 
I believe that I am not the only one who has had this happen, I 
attribute our country's economic slowdown to the ruling by Judge 
Jackson against Microsoft.
    I am interested in seeing the economy get back off the ground 
and firmly believe that letting Microsoft pursue its free enterprise 
strategy of innovating with new products is in our country's 
economic interests, both domestically and internationally. I am 
hoping you will see things similarly and will move aggressively to 
stop the legal challenges aimed at Microsoft.
    Rob Augenstein, CPA
    Lighthouse Group http://www.lighthousegroup.com
    770.512.8990, extension 1015
    770.512.8991 fax


From: Blake Buzzini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express strong support for the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The 
proposed settlement is reasonable and fair and addresses the issues 
found by the Court of Appeals. I also urge you to dismiss the vocal 
minority of Microsoft competitors who seek to hobble the company 


From: James Buzzanco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough! Microsoft is one of us. Bill Gates is not Osama Bin 
Laden! Microsoft is the philanthropic industrialist of our time. Our 
Country and world is better off because of it. Microsoft is the 
Einstein of our time. Enough already. Let's get on with life and 
progress in the United States as it should be. Don't stifle the 
progress of American Citizens. Microsoft is not just one of us, it 
is us. Enough!
    James P Buzzanco


From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This country was built upon the ability to spend time and effort 
to invent and develop new products and ideas. If this is not the 
case, we would not have patents, copyrights, etc. I believe we have 
provided enough time, effort and lawyers salaries , in developing 
the present settlement. This can drag out forever, as the breakup of 
Bell Telephone did in the last century. We do not need to duplicate 
that mistake in this century.
    Bill Williams


From: LJ Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Mircorsoft made the computer work for the commom person at a 
price we could afford they should not be punishied for this ``Stop 
the political blackmail'' LJSweet Taxpayer


From: LJSJD19012@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Doesn't the govt. have enough to do to protect the air 
travelling public and its office workers from airplanes used as 
bombs than frustrate one of the most dynamic companies in the 
world?? It appears to be a question of mixed priorities. The 
politicians grandstand at the public expense to ensure their own 
continuity. All that posturing on C-span is ludicrous.


From: Ooott@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement agreement reached in the 
Microsoft lawsuit. Please allow free enterprise to continue. No 
further litigation should be pursued.
    thank you. . . . . . . . .sharon doyle
    las palmas way
    sarasota, florida


From: nateandsandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe that it is definitely in the best interest of the 
consumer for the case to be settled. We also feel that Microsoft has 
more than demonstrated a reasonable attitude and made every effort 
to settle this case, in the consumer's best interest. We are very 
tired of hearing all the complaints from Microsoft competitors and 
their special interest groups and in-turn the Attorney Generals from 
some states that seem to feel that it is their job to side with 
Microsoft competitors. We feel that the Microsoft competitors have 
the same opportunity in the USA as all businesses. They need to work 
a little harder, hire bright, and innovative employees and stop 
whining all the time.
    Let's get on with getting the economy back on track. Stop 
punishing companies for hard work, brains, and innovation.
    Thank you,
    Nate and Sandra Ribelin


From: ALTRU1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:28pm


From: Sue Shannon-Biddiscombe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:29pm
    I want to see this case settled immediately and with as little 
disruption to Microsoft as possible. Microsoft has not taken 
advantage of consumers; on the contrary, Microsoft has always 
provided the best products and progressively lower prices. Frankly, 
if I turn on a computer and do not see the Microsoft logo, I will be 
very concerned about what I am getting myself into. It only makes 
sense to have a standard software so computers can communicate. The 
last thing this country (and World) needs is several different 
platforms. Deregulation is not working to consumer advantage in 
telecommunications or utilities. Sometimes it makes sense to have 
uniform service.

[[Page 24992]]



From: jryan@nmsu.edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    --I am a firm beleiver in free enterprise system. The goverment 
has a right to watch the adventures of large compnaies to insure our 
competiveness. I do not want the goverment to take over the running 
of the system as a whole.We need companies that are adventureses. 
The system of private entrepnreship is the best for the United 
States. Ask any one in the goverment run venture.
    Thank you
    Jim Ryan.
    James Ryan Email: jryan@nmsu.edu
    New Mexico State Univ. Voice: 505-646-1641
    Box 30001, MSC 3545 Fax: 505-646-1253
    Las Cruces, NM 88003


From: Richard H. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello: I am a Microsoft user of many products. Specifically, 
WindowsXP, WindowsME, OfficeXP . I have been a Microsoft software 
user since I started using a PC--back in 1991.
    I feel that my use of a computer has been greatly enhanced by 
the Microsoft Operating Systems and other compatible software. I 
think that it is competitively priced and think that my computing 
experience would be greatly LESSENED if there was not a company such 
as Microsoft that offered excellent functionality and compatibility.
    The number of software offerings that DO NOT talk to each other 
(compatibility) would have seriously damaged the business workplace 
and greatly increased costs.
    Microsoft, for all of its faults, which are few in comparison to 
other large companies--provides Industry Standards so critical to 
anyone using a PC.
    I would like to know what remedies AOL is under in not making 
their Email and Instant messaging software compatible with the 
majority of the industry? AOL clearly has the market share in the 
Online Subscriber area--Where are the ``government encouragements'' 
for AOL to join in an industry standard?
    The tremendous cost of litigation for Microsoft, The Federal 
Government, The States should indicate that it is time to close this 
chapter soon. It is hard to see how the consumer has been harmed by 
the invention of integrated WORKING software that is very 
competently supported (technically).
    Lets get on with productive endeavors--the introduction of new 
products and the encouragement of innovation and not hamper one of 
the most successful and profitable AMERICAN companies.
    Thank you


From: Richard A. Arrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a patent attorney and a Microsoft product user. I am glad 
that the Federal Government finally settled with Microsoft. I think 
that the settlement should go through and we should let Microsoft 
get back to improving their products and making the competition 
improve theirs.
    Richard A. Arrett, Esq.
    Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A.
    6109 Blue Circle Drive
    Suite 2000
    Minnetonka, MN 55343-9185
    Phone: (952) 563-3000
    Facsimile: (952) 563-3001
    E-Mail: rarrett@vaslaw.com


From: avenger999@earthlink.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:32pm
Subject: On Microsoft..
    Attn: USDOJ
    As a taxpaying citizen I would like to say I'm dissapointed that 
all this effort is being placed to investigate an honest company 
such as Microsoft. It has broken no laws. Microsoft's competitors 
are only upset that they have been beaten in the business market. 
They can't compete against Microsoft so now they want the US to 
control Microsoft in order to level the playing field. The playing 
field was already fair, and they lost.
    Please allow Microsoft to continue running the company as it has 
done, without violating any laws, which ultimately benefits the 
    Don't allow this to continue.
    Thank You,
    Sam Torres


From: Brett and Angela Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ representitive,
    I would like to voice my opinion as an ``average consumer'' 
concerning the antitrust stettlement with Microsoft. I work in the 
computer industry developing new servers and PCs for a major 
computer manufacturer, and I have been using computers for over 12 
years (ever since the days of 9600 baud modems and BBS's). Obviously 
I have seen a lot of changes over the years in our industry.
    Having said that I will make my observations concerning 
Microsoft and the antitrust case. Microsoft has put out some great 
software over the years, but it is painfully obvious that their 
focus has shifted from designing great software for the industry to 
designing software that garners more money, power, and influence 
over the industry. I remember the days when the software industry 
flourished with creativity and unique ideas from many different 
companies. I was always excited about the newest titles and ideas 
that were being put forth year to year. Microsoft was at their best 
in this environment, and it would be unfair to say that they did not 
contribute to the boom of the PC industry around the world.
    Unfortunately Microsoft's business practices have also done a 
severe injustice to both America and the computer industry at large: 
Their unchecked monopoly power has stifled the creativity and 
competitive environment that they thrived in. Their continued 
bundling of Microsoft only software is no longer helpful to the 
consumer, but in fact it serves to limit choice and crush 
competition before it even starts.
    As an example, when CNET recently reviewed browsers on their 
website (www.cnet.com), they graded Opera, Netscape, and Internet 
Explorer on several fronts: ease of installation, feature set, 
usability, etc.. Internet Explorer won the comparision, but what is 
interesting is that CNET concluded that it was basically a tie 
except for 2 facets: Internet Explorer comes preloaded on PCs so the 
installation was therefore easiest and cleanest, and its integration 
with the OS made it much more stable. I say that is unfair. 
Microsoft's mantra is that ``integration is innovation and is good 
for the consumer''. If that is the case, then why don't they 
integrate MS Office, since that is the most useful feature set for 
the user outside of the OS itself? I'll tell you why, because they 
would loose $300 per license on the Office Suite.
    So why is it ok to integrate Internet Explorer, Messenger, 
Passport, Media Player? Because they have direct competition in 
these areas (i.e. Netscape, AOL Messenger-ICQ-Yahoo Messenger, and 
Real Media Player to name the obvious ones). Microsoft must not be 
allowed to use their OS platform monopoly to undercut their 
competition like that!
    It is my strong opinion that Microsoft neither regrets, nor 
intends to change, their business tactics or their corporate 
behavior. It is also my opinion that the proposed settlement plays 
right into Microsoft's hand--that they will be able to skate around 
the words and ambiguities in the agreement to maintain their status 
quo, and therefore their monopoly. I am sad to see that the 
possibility exists that they will get off ``scott free''. For what 
its worth, I think they should be held to the carpet and made to see 
the error of their practices. I propose Microsoft be required to do 
the following:
    1) Offer a stripped down version of Windows at a much cheaper 
price, and allow OEM computer makers to bundle whatever they want 
with the OS at the Factory Level.
    2) Be required to share APIs and protocols that a competitor 
would need to know in order to develop a stable competitive product. 
Microsoft should also not be allowed to ``tweak'' their OS in such a 
way that it ``accidentally'' breaks competing software titles.
    3) They need to be publicly convicted of their behavior! 
Examples are VERY necessary, and if we don't punish Microsoft's 
behavior then other industry players will follow their ``example'' 
of success.
    Do we really want that?
    In conclusion, I respectfully ask that we please uphold the law 
and punish them for the violations that they have committed. Only 
then will creativity flourish again in our industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brett Wharton.

[[Page 24993]]


From: Sean Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern regarding the matter of United States v. 
Microsoft Settlement,
    In general I believe the terms of the agreement are fair and 
just. It should be noted that NO other company in this industry 
provides the levels of access to source code and API's as defined in 
this agreement. This includes the Java platform which unfairly has 
been described as a ``community'' of vendors. The Java platform is a 
significant competitor to Microsoft and is a proprietary 
implementation that falls under the sole discretion of Sun 
Microsystems in how it is used and by whom it is disclosed to.
    Two significant factors should be examined when considering the 
fairness of this agreement: the merits of the original case made to 
the courts and the current climate of competitiveness. On the first 
point the main case against Microsoft was concerning the 
anticompetitive actions against Netscape. Upon examining the history 
of Netscape one can easily see that it was purchased by a 
significant competitor of Microsoft, AOL, and then purposely 
dismantled the company to prevent it from effectively competing. It 
should be noted that Netscape, after the purchase by AOL, did not 
release a major version of their browser until just a few months ago 
after the Microsoft verdict was overturned on appeal. Obviously it 
was in AOL's best interest to show that Netscape was harmed by 
Microsoft so they purposely prevent the product from moving forward. 
On the second point the computer operating systems marketplace is 
extremely competitive. Depending on how you distort the figures you 
can make them say anything you want them to. The normal statistic 
quoted it that 95% of the operating systems run on Intel PC 
processors is Microsoft. If you broaden this to say what operating 
system do most end users interact with: IBM mainframe OS's. If you 
look at what operating system most transactions are processed on: 
IBM mainframe OS's. If you look at what most Internet sites and 
applications run on: UNIX. When you look at the whole computer field 
you can easily see that the it is a very competitive environment.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sean Flynn


From: Earl Helbig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all the important matters facing our nation, it is time we 
act on a Microsoft settlement that favors innovation and protects 
competition. Dragging out this settlement is not in the national 
interest. Let us have closure at once.
    Earl G. and Ruth E. Helbig


From: PEDAMNER@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:35pm
Subject: microsoft
    the agreement between microsoft and the doj should let stand. 
the country is in a rfecession now and perhaps the agreed settlement 
could hel0p to allow everybody to get back to work and the doj to 
tackle more meaningful cases. i knows a lot of people and all with 
computers and i have never heard,not one, complain that windows 
software was too high. i don't know where that came from.
    yours very truly,
    philip damner.


From: Paul F. Poelker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The agreement reached between Microsoft, the nine states 
involved, and the Federal Government addressed in the Court of 
Appeals ruling should be ACCEPTED.
    It is time to stop any further litigation in this case and 
finalize the above mentioned agreement.
    Paul F. Poelker
    Dallas, TX


From: Linda Welshons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this destructive and unjustified lawsuit now. 
Microsoft has done nothing to harm customers. They enjoy popularity 
because their products work and are inexpensive. Their competitors 
want to charge high prices and are fighting to protect them. This 
suit does not serve the American people. It is a waste of our tax 
dollars and it is destructive to the economy.
    Linda Welshons


From: Valda Redfern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has EARNED its 
``monopoly''. Nobody has ever been forced to buy Microsoft products; 
every single one of Microsoft's millions of customers chose to buy 
them. You can get computers that don't come bundled with MS--I used 
to use them all the time in my work. If most people prefer computers 
that do come bundled with MS, that's because Microsoft offers them a 
    If the government of its own country, the freest in the world, 
continues to victimise it, what hope will Microsoft have in Europe?
    Yours truly,
    Valda Redfern
    17 St Laurence Road
    Bradford on Avon UK BA15 1JQ


From: Espey, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that ANY settlement against Microsoft is just. 
In fact, I believe if anything the US government owes reparations to 
Microsoft for the damage that was caused over the past year and a 
half. Bill Gates should be revered as our greatest man, not spit on 
and insulted at the behest of jealous and less wealthy billionaires 
(Larry Ellison, Steve Case, Scott McNealy, et al).
    Thank you for your time and consideration
    John Espey


From: Matthew Ballin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please defend the free market by not persecuting Microsoft for 
being more successful than its competitors. America has risen to 
greatness by leaving the talented and productive alone to do what 
they do best; an attack against Microsoft is an attack against our 
founding principles.
    Matthew Ballin


From: Norm Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write in support of the current settlement agreement between 
the US DOJ and Microsoft. Please defend it assiduously against 
further corrosion by the judge(s) and/or the remaining states 
attorneys general.


From: Auren Hoffman (BridgePath)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe 
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution. Microsoft 
is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, but they are 
guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations. Moreover, the 
PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for its 
    Auren Hoffman CEO, BridgePath Corporation
    Auren Hoffman BridgePath
    463 Bryant Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107
    dir: 415-946-6019
    The BridgePath Exchange enables staffing firms to monetize 
unfilled job orders and unplaced candidates


From: John Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached article I wrote to illustrate my concern for the 
Microsoft suit. Please read it and include it in the record of the 
public comments.

[[Page 24994]]

    John E. Arnold
    John E. Arnold
    2521 SW Pepperwood Ct Topeka, KS 66614
    Mr. Walter Mossberg WSJ via email: mossberg@wsj.com. Re: The 
Microsoft Case I read your column regularly and usually enjoy what 
you offer. I wrote this piece a bit ago on the Microsoft Case as my 
perspective. I'm moved to send it to you after your piece today on 
Microsoft costing consumers. I don't think so.
    The U.S. Justice Department in its zeal to protect the anti-
trust laws has destroyed about two trillion dollars worth of the 
nation's economy. It has done more damage than Castro, Saddam 
Hussein, global warming, and the last five hurricanes. Defenders of 
the Justice Department will say, ``Yeah, right. Those stocks were 
over priced.'' Those need to recall that the Great Depression was 
caused, historians and economists uniquely agree, by the actions of 
the U.S. regulators misjudging their actions' impacts. The Justice 
Department is wrong and wrong-headed on the issue. Microsoft has, 
arguably more than any other firm, made the so-called New Economy, 
and brought unparalleled economic health to the country. Moreover it 
has made the use of the computer seamless.
    Contrast Microsoft with the AT&T breakup. I had the joy of 
starting a new agency in 1986, just after the breakup of AT&T and 
the creation of all the entities necessary to get phone service. 
Where before that you called ``the phone company'' and ordered 
``phones and phone service and maintenance,'' afterwards you called 
the phone company and could get only local service. When you asked 
for long distance, they said you have to call someone else. 
Surprised, you asked who to call, who was out there? You were told, 
``I can't tell you that.'' When you asked about phones, you were 
told you had to go somewhere else. But again, they couldn't tell you 
where. Maintenance of the lines? Somewhere else.
    So while before we had a seamless, wonderfully efficient phone 
system, all bundled together, afterwards we had to become 
knowledgeable about phones, knowledgeable about long distance, 
knowledgeable about maintenance of lines, knowledgeable about all 
the disparate pieces. It no longer was easy and quick. It will be 
worse with an unbundled Microsoft.
    Think of the complexity if Microsoft had not bundled operating 
system with software with Internet connections. I had an early 
microcomputer. Not all the software was compatible with it. I had to 
become knowledgeable of arcane details I wasn't interested in 
learning, and this was a simple machine. I wanted to spend my time 
using the machine, as a productivity tool. As the PC has progressed 
and the seamlessness has progress--largely through Microsoft's 
efforts--I am more and more able to use my time the way I want--in 
applications. I don't want to have to go to one store for my 
computer, another for my operating system, another for my software--
which may not work with other software--and another for the Internet 
    That's a wrong-headed approach, a step backward from 
productivity. In fact, I think no judge, attorney, or justice 
working on the case should be allowed to do so unless they are the 
systems operator of the computer of their family or office, and 
routinely add software, software upgrades, and computer 
enhancements. No one who doesn't know firsthand the complexity of 
determining which component of the mix of hardware, middleware, and 
software is the incompatible one can say that forced unbundling is a 
good idea.
    Incredibly, I heard Judge Jackson interviewed on NPR and he said 
he didn't know what kind of operating system his computer at home 
had. He said it wasn't a Mac. The interviewer was incredulous and so 
was I that the man we allowed to make the most critical judgment on 
the integrated operating system and the industry had so little 
    In fact, most attorneys in my experience do not even do their 
own keyboarding. They rely on dictation or hand written legal pads. 
None who do business that way are sufficiently grounded in the 
technology to be involved in the case.
    Many have written articles offering evidence that the Justice 
Department is on the wrong track. The evidence of pricing: a 
monopoly would have raised the prices, and the evidence is clear the 
prices of software and of operating systems and of computers have 
declined. That early computer I bought cost me $2,000. It had less 
power than today's Hewlett Packard calculator. Today we can buy a 
personal computer with power of a 1975 Cray machine (which the U.S. 
government prohibited from being sold to a foreign nation as an 
issue of national security) for less than $1,000, some less than 
$500. That's not the workings of a monopoly and the Justice 
Department and the Judge must not be seeing clearly as theses 
impacts are relevant.
    Byte editor Jerry Pournelle recounted the competitive wars and 
the bad business decisions made by the competitors of Microsoft, 
when they were strong and Microsoft was weak, allowing the Microsoft 
innovations to make inroads into markets others had sewn up, the 
better product beating out the inferior. That's what innovation and 
creativity in an atmosphere of freedom is supposed to do. Microsoft 
was inconsequential to IBM and to Apple and they didn't surpass 
either by monopoly tactics but by building products that served 
consumers. Pournelle pointed out several products that commanded the 
market and failed to take advantage of it, while Microsoft built a 
better one. VisiCalc was the spreadsheet lead (it was on the first 
computer I bought), then Lotus 1-2-3 had the lead and let it slip, 
and now Excel is dominant, as is Word, having innovated beyond Word 
Pro, WordStar, Wordperfect and others.
    Attacking Microsoft for its successes as excesses of power is 
just plain factually wrong. And it's wrong-headed. I hope you find 
that of some use.
    John Arnold


From: OKUBOHB@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    It is about time that the federal government reached an 
agreement with Microsoft. American economy need to move forward, 
continued lawsuit against Microsoft is counterproductive to the 
    Hikaru Okubo, PE


From: HeleneTr@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's roll. Settle the Microsoft Court litigation. I agree with 
the law as stated in the Tunney Act.
    Barbara Reinoehl


From: Beverlysky@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft Alone! Lets put our energies into creating not 
destroying. Lets get to work on helping everyone in the world get 
connected. There are universes of technology waiting to be 
    Beverly Sky


From: Mildred Weiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:51pm
Subject: Netscape Litigation
    Good Luck!


From: John Ritchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft got its start in inovation and is contionous in these 
veins to build a strong company. Why must costly and unnessary 
leagal actions persist, even after bush administration and fedral 
government has endorsed the completion of this juducial wrangaling. 
Please for the world, nation, states, company, and mostly for the 
high cost that consumers will pay stop this wastful investigation! 
This matter will only give money to a handful of lawyers and hope to 
further the careers of some prosicutors who hope to use this as a 
platform from which to aide their political ambitions. It has grown 
time to resolve and rebuild not wound and drive at the very heart of 
U.S. economic strienght, where market influence can and will over 
time reduce this to a non-issue. Please urge all states to have a 
hands off approch to this matter. In hopes that these comments can 
help you decide.
    John B. Ritchie
    Carlisle, MA. 01741


From: Jeff Hatfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  l:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24995]]

    I wish to express my view that the Microsoft Corporation is 
right and the U.S. government is wrong in its Antitrust case.
    It is my opinion that the U.S. government should stop wasting my 
tax dollars to persecute Microsoft's alleged ``Antitrust'' 
violation. Antitrust is just a means for envious politicians to cut 
down successful businesses that supply the public with goods that 
are in popular demand. Antitrust is a throwback to a fabian 
socialistic era that sacrificed the demands of the consumers to the 
demands of the politicians. Any settlement terms are a compromise of 
the right to the wrong. That is if you believe that a free market is 
right... If I were Bill Gates, I would ``settle'' this case by 
offering to close down Microsoft, instead of prostrating myself to 
the incompetent.
    Jeff Hatfield
    P.O. Box 2151
    Windermere, Florida 34786


From: Quinn Woodworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:56pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    The anti-trust assault on Microsoft is immoral and anti-
American. The government is attempting to punish Microsoft for the 
same moral values that have helped make America the beacon of the 
world: hard work, creativity, achievement. Unlike kings of the past 
and governments of the present, Microsoft has acquired its wealth--
not by confiscation--but by production, by creating products that 
people want to buy. Politicians have been bought by Microsoft's 
competitions to bring suit against Microsoft. Since they are unable 
to compete fairly then they resort to gaining political pull. Then 
government pawns can cripple their opponent for them. That's what 
this anti-trust suit against Microsoft is all about. It has nothing 
to do with serving the public. If the government truly was 
interested in the public good, it would leave Microsoft alone and 
the government would stop interfering by ``regulating'' business. 
All the government does is cripple some business so their 
competitors can take over.
    The anti-trust suit should be abolished.
    Microsoft should be left alone.
    Quinn Woodworth


From: FitzS1801@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are sick and tired of Senator Hatch and his Utah competitors 
of Microsoft make Microsoft and the government spend so much time on 
this issue. After all microsoft has done all the work to bring this 
computer business to so many millions of people around the world 
that to let these politicians keep this issue alive is a travisty. 
Only the nasty lawyers get anything out of it. And our government 
looks stupid!
    Very truly yours,
    Mr. Richard FitzSimmons


From: vince duschean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: micrsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern at the justice department. Please settle 
the suit you have with microsoft as you have outlined. The only 
advantage continuing this or other suits against Microsoft goes to 
other non-performers in the software business like SUN-Micro systems 
and Oracle who have not delivered and continue to blame others for 
their failures.


From: Munari@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: Settlement
    I firmly believe that this whole Microsoft thing has gone on too 
long. Since the government and nine states have come to a 
settlement, I see no reason to drag this whole thing on.
    Our country has bigger problems that trying to crucify one 
corporation. Let the government's decision stand and put this matter 
to rest.
    Jo Ann Feikes
    Las Vegas, NV


From: Dick Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in agreement with the microsoft settlement. Let's not waste 
any more government money on this matter.


From: Ricky Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking as a private citizen on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, I strongly support the DOJ's proposed settlement and 
urge all concerned to accept it as the final arbitration of the 
dispute in question.
    Ricky Morris, MCSE Microsoft Small Business Server Support,
    Las Colinas, TX
    * 469-775-7290 (Direct Line)
    Email: rickym@microsoft.com


From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing regarding the proposed settlement between Microsoft 
and The US Dept. Of Justice.
    I find it totally unacceptable to not put Microsoft in a 
position where it is unable to pursue the immoral and unethical 
business practices that it has shown itself prone to. I read the 
findings of fact that were released by the judge months ago, and was 
dumbfounded that any company could get away with the actions that 
Microsoft took. Anyone involved with the case should re-read these 
statements of fact that show Microsoft as a monopolistic predator 
with almost unlimited power. A viewing of the video taped 
depositions of Bill Gates would convince anyone of the 100% sleaze 
of Gates and Microsoft. They will do anything to increase their 
power if left unchecked.
    Please take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation. 
Microsoft should be broken into smaller companies that do not have a 
death grip on the tech market. If this is too drastic, at least do 
something that makes a difference and restores competition.
    Dr. Bruce Rogovin
    8686 Winton Rd.
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45231


From: PROWLON99@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58pm


From: Otto Dieffenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Seems about right. Now lets get on with the economy!


From: Melinda York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:00pm
    Settlement is good do it now. Enough time and money has been 
wasted on all this needless litigation. Imagine in the one country 
in the world where creativity and imagination can lead the way to 
tremendous development of new technology and creation of jobs for 
people, where the government is going after and murdering and 
stifling one of the largest and most successful companies of its 
kind. Leave Microsoft alone so it can continue to create jobs and 
new technology in the world and especially in the US where we need 
it now. Get off their back and let us recover this weak and sad 
economy. YOU the government are using my money for the wrong things.
    Thank you.

[[Page 24996]]


From: David Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to use the public comment period 
regarding the Microsoft Settlement to comment as follows.
    1/Discharge AOL Complaints: With reference to the 1995 case of 
AOL vs Microsoft regarding bundling of the MSN on-line service with 
Windows 95, AOL claimed that this bundling would make it difficult 
for AOL to succeed in the on-line market, and so it was anti-
competitive. The case was overturned. Since 1995, AOL has achieved 
approximately 80% market share, and built profits that enabled them 
to acquire Netscape and Time-Warner (one of the largest mergers of 
all time). Therefore, it's clear that bundling MSN with Windows 95 
was not anti-competitive.
    AOL's role as an injured party in the current Microsoft case is 
disingenuous. In fact, history shows that after MSN was bundled with 
Windows 95, on-line services became more pervasive, companies like 
AOL boomed, and consumers obtained services more easily because 
connectivity infrastructure was included with Windows. The pervasive 
nature of this infrastructure in Windows made it possible for a 
generation to participate in the ?internet revolution?, which 
yielded significantly greater consumer benefits than the closed 
nature of (for example) AOL, MSN, and CompuServe, as these existed 
in 1995.
    2/Discharge Netscape Complaints: I understand that the current 
case against Microsoft is based on a complaint that Netscape's 
browser market was damaged by the bundling of Internet Explorer with 
Windows, and that this was not in the public interest.
    In fact, Netscape's browser (Navigator) was free (like Internet 
Explorer), so the business that may have been damaged was non-
existent. If Netscape chose to base their market on a zero-price 
commodity, that's bad management on their part, not Microsoft's 
fault. AOL now bundles Netscape Navigator as part of their service, 
which is clearly in consumers? interests, just as the bundling of IE 
with Windows.
    If such bundling had not taken place, it's believable that the 
?internet revolution? may have been delayed, as people would have 
been required to purchase separate pieces of software, and figure 
out significant technical complexities in order to go on line. Not 
having a browser in the internet age is like having a car without an 
engine ? the Internet would be useless. Therefore, it's unthinkable 
that a software company with vision and leadership would NOT bundle 
a browser as a fundamental base technology. Obviously Microsoft's 
actions benefited consumers, and did not damage any then-existing 
revenue stream for other companies. On the contrary, Microsoft made 
a contribution to the entire US economy by helping to drive 
connectivity and Internet browsing as base functionality available 
to all consumers.
    3/Discharge ?Monopolistic behavior? complaints: In 1991 I worked 
for Chevron (oil company) and attended a forum for the top customers 
of the Lotus Corporation (spreadsheet software vendor). At the time, 
Microsoft Excel and Word had negligible share in a market dominated 
by Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, and Microsoft was trying to encourage 
all software vendors to produce applications with a graphical user 
interface (GUI), to make it easier for consumers to use their 
    At this 1991 forum, Mr Manzi, then Lotus CEO, gave a keynote 
speech in which he spent 45 minutes explaining why users did not 
need a GUI, and why Lotus would not have a Windows version of their 
spreadsheet. He was followed by Mr Peterson, then CEO of WordPerfect 
Corporation, who presented almost the same speech about why 
WordPerfect users did not need a GUI.
    Obviously, both these companies were wrong about what their 
consumers required. The fact that Microsoft Excel and Word have 
replaced Lotus and WordPerfect as market leaders is a result of bad 
business management, and wrong strategic decisions by Microsoft's 
competitors. It is not due to monopolistic behavior, as Microsoft 
did not have a monopoly in spreadsheets or wordprocessors. The 
success of Excel and Word is became these are superior products, not 
because of behavior that makes Microsoft a threat to the public 
    Conclusion: While it's true that Microsoft is an aggressive 
company, I cannot understand why their vision, commitment, and 
resulting success should be held against them. Windows has 
approximately 80% of the operating system market. Logically, this 
means that Windows should get credit for 80% of the success in 
making computers pervasive, and the resulting benefits to consumers 
and the US economy. The only entities that could benefit if the 
Microsoft Settlement is overturned are a small number of companies 
that compete with Microsoft. I am convinced that these companies 
have their own management to blame for any perceived lack of 
success, and in many cases (like AOL/Netscape), they are actually 
more successful as a result of Microsoft's market position.
    Please resist the self interests of the companies that complain 
against Microsoft, and consider the enormous progress that has been 
made in consumer-oriented computing in the past few years while 
Microsoft has been providing vision, leadership, and superior 
    Dave Berry


From: Lynne Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would like the Microsoft case to be settled and have no 
further litigation.
    Thank you,
    Lynne Garvie


From: Albert Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir:
    I cannot accept without writing the settlement agreed to by the 
Department of Justice.
    The usual expectation is that when a property crime is 
committed, the perpetrator is required to restore the ill-gotten 
gain. And, after that, the perpetrator is punished.
    The proposed settlement does not begin to approach restoration 
of a comeptitive environment for computer operating systems. Nor for 
computer applications. The breakup of Microsoft looked like a 
reasonable start to me. While hardly the total punishment deserved, 
it certainly was the proper starting point.
    I hope you will refuse to accept the DOJ agreement with 
Microsoft. We deserve better service from our system of justice.
    Yours truly,
    Albert O. Howard


From: Mike Zyskowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed by Microsoft should be agreed 
to and accepted by the Federal Government.
    Michael K. Zyskowski


From: Ron and Lucy Flenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are sending you this e-mail to ask that the Justice Dept 
accept and approve of the settlement that has been made with 
Microsoft recently. We believe that the settlement is kinda tough, 
but fair and reasonable to all sides. To delay the instrumentation 
of this settlement would only serve to delay final justice.
    Ron and Lucy Flenner
    Louisville, IL 62858


From: Jearl R. Waddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please insure that the Microsoft settlement is carried out and 
not derailed. The settlement is good for the consumer and the 
    Thank You,
    Jearl R. Waddell
    115 Lauderdale Road
    Woodbury, NJ 08096


From: Sparky Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After observing this case for four year, it's time to settle, 
and let America and Microsoft return to work. This case has gone on 
long enough. The proposed settlement properly restricts Microsoft's 
business practices without the extreme penalties being asked for by 
    Byrne Sanford
    Sammamish, Washington
    Sparky Sanford

[[Page 24997]]

    425 889-1615


From: Tempel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement as is. My family believes 
that this is a tought but fair settlement. And any more delays to 
getting this behind us is going to be bad for our economy and bad 
for our belief in the fairness of our justice system!
    Bob Tempel
    Sherman, IL


From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    ``((hey associate top boxes))'' ``9job code; NO5rc-en)'' ``99hey 
pay per view channels cable net microsoft at&t time warner comcast 
puget sound technology microsoft what is the innovation I.D. code 
dismissed or ignored or brushed off it is mine govt))''
    (((signed, RICHARD JOHN FRANK 1-4-2002)))


From: Lou F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel that Microsoft has done everything right, he has worked 
on this project form many, many years, There should not have been 
any settlement on this company at all. As for how much, 1.00 US 
dollar should be more then enough. Leave this man alone, and let him 
bring us into the furture. That is all I have to say.


From: Jean Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Litigation, submitted 1-3-2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is my belief from the information I have read That this has 
been going on too long. The freedom of progress has been slowed, and 
the publicity has been mostly adverse. It is time to close this 
matter and get on with regular daily business for the sake of 
promoting our economy. Microsoft is one of the most generous 
business firms in the world, and should be a promotion business to 
    Sincerely submitted,
    M. Jean Thompson,
    2034 E. No Crescent,
    Spokane, Wa 99207
    The greatest of these is LOVE!


From: Susan Barba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This is to urge you to please settle the Microsoft case without 
further delay and litigation. As an American consumer, I believe the 
settlement is fair and is to the benefit of the American public. 
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
    Susan Elizabeth Barba


From: David Eckman
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please submit the following comments to the Judge hearing this 
matter: I urge you NOT to approve the settlement terms with 
Microsoft that the federal government has negotiated. Following are 
several reasons and suggested order terms, based on my extensive use 
of personal computers in my law practice since 1983-84 and my 
knowledge of and experience with many operating systems and a wide 
variety of computer software, as well as in developing software:
    I and millions of other OS/2 users have been damaged by 
Microsoft's illegal use of tying agreements and other illegal 
conduct to gain a monopoly and its retaliatory and predatory use of 
its monopoly power against OS/2 (and other operating systems). Based 
on my experience and knowledge of the industry, what I believe will 
punish Microsoft most effectively while also stimulating competition 
would be an order directing Microsoft as follows for at least 20 
    (1) Require Microsoft to LICENSE AT NO COST to the licensee ALL 
CODE necessary (a) to allow all other operating systems to run 32-
bit (and eventually higher level) programs written for Windows and 
every other operating system developed by Microsoft, and (b) to 
allow other developers' software to run as effectively under Windows 
and such other operating systems as Microsoft's own programs. That 
code should be made available to developers of operating system 
enhancements and plugins as well as the operating system developers 
themselves and should be made available as soon as it is being 
incorporated into any Microsoft product. The only limitation on such 
a requirement should be that the licensee be a U.S. citizen or 
    (2) Prohibit Microsoft from any arrangement by which its 
software would be included in new computers. Microsoft's past use of 
its monopoly power and its use of tying agreements and other illegal 
arrangements to discourage computer manufacturers from offering non-
Microsoft operating systems and other software on their computers 
has seriously harmed competition, and those still willing to compete 
need many years without Microsoft's predatory conduct to catch up.
    (3) Prohibit Microsoft from any alterations, modifications or 
additions to Java and other other open software except those 
approved and adopted by the consortiums developing the open software 
for everyone's use. Microsoft has used its monopoly power to write 
its own version of Java, which was offered by Sun as open software. 
There are presently sites that my version of Netscape cannot access 
because they use a Microsoft version of Java. Java developers have 
felt the stinging impact of Microsoft's illegal behavior. Its 
consequences in the future may be even more severe if the federal 
government's weak legal precedent is established.
    With the order components set forth above, what Microsoft does 
with Explorer would be irrelevant since other operating systems 
could include other web browsers, yet all operating systems could 
run Windows (and other Microsoft operating system) programs, which 
has become the standard for most software being developed today 
because of Microsoft's past illegal conduct. Imposing the 
restrictions for a minimum of 20 years would allow other operating 
systems to strengthen and grow in usage to the point where software 
program developers would find it profitable to produce native 
versions of their software for such systems. The history of OS/2 
shows that this would work:
    While Windows was a 16-bit system and its 16-bit code was 
included in OS/2, sales and use of OS/2 grew, and native 
applications were being developed. But when Windows became a 32-bit 
program and Microsoft's 32-bit Windows code was not included in OS/
2, OS/2's market position and its growing acceptance were seriously 
hurt. That was exacerbated by Microsoft's illegal tying and other 
agreements that kept manufacturers from including OS/2 on their new 
computers. While OS/2 has remained alive despite Microsoft's illegal 
conduct (because of OS/2's superiority as an operating system over 
everything Microsoft has produced thus far) it cannot return to 
marketing success without the ability to run applications that most 
users want. In fact, IBM has been forced to scale back further work 
on OS/2, and it has almost given up on it because of Microsoft's 
pressure on it and the difficulty of dealing with Microsoft's 
illegal use of its monopoly power. OS/2 could return to effective 
competition with licenses of Microsoft's operating system code, at 
no cost to IBM and/or those who might want to enhance the system if 
IBM chooses not to do it. Finally, I understand that Microsoft has 
violated with impunity consent decrees of the past. It should be 
ordered to pay a substantial fine. It should also be ordered to pay 
all costs of monitoring its compliance in the future. This should 
continue for at least 20 years.
    IBM was severely punished over 20 years ago for its antitrust 
behavior. It then managed to behave in a responsible manner and has 
continued to do so. There is no reason why Microsoft should not be 
similarly punished now, so that it and Bill Gates can learn to 
behave as responsible corporate citizens. The economic consequences 
to Microsoft, however severe, would be entirely appropriate to its 
outrageous and illegal conduct. And I have no doubt that it could 
survive as a healthy company.
    [J:] David Eckman
    Law Offices of David W. Eckman
    3730 Kirby Dr., Suite 1200
    Houston, Texas 77098-3927


From: Frank Angrisano
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24998]]

Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a Microsoft product user I want the Justice Department to 
accept the agreement that has been mutually agreed upon. The hold 
out states should be ignored, as they seem to have an ulterior 
motive for not agreeing with the present settlement. As a product 
user I have never felt that Microsoft has taken advantage of me or 
that I have paid an excessive price for any of their products.
    Frank Angrisano
    78 Rancho Del Sol
    Camino, CA. 95709
    e-mail: franking@cwnet.com


From: H.Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement process should go forward with haste. 
The public and Microsoft have paid a huge price to get to this point 
and to continue to waste taxpayer dollars is wrong. Microsoft has 
been an innovator in the tech industry for a long time and they 
should have the opportunity to continue to do so for the good of the 
country and its consumers. Please see that this reaches a conclusion 
    Herbert A Barr
    309 Willow Drive
    Enterprise, Alabama 36330


From: IVLABONNE@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this matter. We do not need any more litigation. 
This does NOT serve the public purpose of the anti-trust act.
    Microsoft has been punished enough.......probably more than it 
    Irene M. LaBonne


From: Narendra Parekh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am IN FAVOR of the settlement that DOJ and states have reached 
on Microsoft issue.
    - Narendra Parekh
    - Amishi Parekh
    - Saheli Parekh
    Address: 5341 FORTE LANE, CONCORD, CA 94521


From: ford658
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices,
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. I like all consumers vote 
with my pocketbook. Since Microsoft is the champion in innovation, 
products, and business acumen, I buy their products. I also avoid 
the products of those who seek the power of the government to 
    The problem is not with Microsoft, it is with the anti-trust 
law--it should be rescinded.
    Frederick Ford


From: avawter1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment Attorneys
    Department of Justice
    As a member of the public using products in the field covered by 
the recent & lengthy litigation of this case, I urge you to finalize 
the settlement reached last year. It was evident that much hard work 
and ``give'' took place on both sides of the dispute and this is 
appreciated. It was also evident that this anti-trust case had a 
severe impact on the technological economy and on product innovation 
that affects consumers. Please, let's lift this burden with a swift 
conclusion to the matter in accord with the terms of the settlement.
    Antoinette W. Vawter
    Pismo Beach, CA


From: tom dobbin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to accept 
the settlement that is now before the courts. It seems to me that we 
as taxpayers and shareholders have suffered enough at the hands of 
those who want to return to the protection of the ``buggy whip'' 
industry. The antagonists in the Microsoft case are woefully out of 
touch with reality. In this age of technological advances which look 
more like a tidal wave, anyone who tries to hold to the status quo 
of yesteryear is dreaming. For the benefit of us all, let the 
proposed settlement go forward as written.
    Thank you.
    Thomas D. Dobbin
    422 Island View So.
    Mattawa, WA 99349


From: Debbie Purdie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is high time the government (Feds and State) and 
Microsoft put an end to this case. We have learned over the years 
that when both sides are not happy with it, then it is probably as 
good a deal as one could ask for. We hear the complaints from both 
sides which tells us it really is time to put this thing to bed. We 
strongly urge the Justice Department to accept the settlement!!!!!!
    I have informed my Senator that I am not in favor of anymore 
political posturing via hearings, and that the dissenting states 
Attorney's General should stop the political barking (which is just 
to appease the big software and Internet companies that want to 
destroy their competitors). Competition is good for the computer 
industry and this settlement seems to assure fair and honest 
competition will take place.
    Scott and Debbie Purdie
    PS We are stockholders of BOTH AOL and Microsoft and actually 
have a greater stake in AOL than Microsoft. We think AOL's lobbying 
against this settlement is little more than sour grapes (and we have 
communicated with them our feelings as expressed above).
    --- Debbie Purdie
    --- purdies@earthlink.net


From: Kurt Wiseman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that settlement in the DOJ case against Microsoft is 
in the best interest of the U.S. and the American people.
    Kurt Wiseman


From: jhministry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the dept of Justice has done enough to Microsoft. 
It has made its case and levied its verdict.
    It is time to move on. And allowing the other companies to 
continue to drag Microsoft down after your verdict has been given is 
a shame. Every business would love the opportunity to squash its 
competition to fill its own pocket and that is what you are allowing 
the other 9 states to do lead by the Microsoft competitors. When 
will it stop???????????????
    Rev Johnie Hinson
    109 Flinton Dr
    Hampton, VA 23666


From: Jack (038) Dot O'Hara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Our Comment on the subject ,as provided by the Tunney Act, is 
that the settlement is the best available result in a case that 
should never have been prosecuted by the U. S. DoJ or the Attorney 
Generals of the States involved, because there has been no damage to 
the purchasers or to the users of computers that were sold with 
Microsoft software installed. On the contrary, the public, the 
computer manufacturers and the economy of the nation were, and 
continue to be, greatly benefited by Microsoft products and 
marketing practices.
    We have studied the bases advanced by the USDoJ and the States 
as justification for their prosecution and have found them to be 
wholly without merit. On the contrary, our study has convinced us 
that the prosecution was politically motivated and has resulted in a 
gross injustice to Microsoft and has done irreparable damage to the 
credibility and the

[[Page 24999]]

reputation for trustworthiness of the Attorney Generals of the US 
and of the States concerned and of the Federal Judiciary.
    Respectfully submitted
    John A. O'Hara, Jr. and Dorothy M. O'Hara
    81 Highpoint Lane
    Chelan WA 98816


From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit these comments and observations. I am a 
technologist who has been in this industry since 1985. I currently 
work for a brand building corporation that uses both Windows and 
Macintosh systems. In a prior career I worked for Ameritech (now 
SBC) for 30 years, five of which were in the IT organization.
    I am writing this letter because I strongly believe the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft fails to 
achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal 
conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and depriving 
Microsoft of its illegal gains. It appears that Microsoft has again 
accomplished its objectives and will continue now on its campaign of 
total dominance of anything it chooses. I fail to understand why our 
US Justice representatives, would once again offer a simple slap on 
the wrist to a company that has ignored a similar punishment in the 
past. Clearly, this approach has not and will not work. Microsoft 
has so many ways to interpret this proposed agreement that it is a 
total waste of paper. Were they not convicted of being an illegal 
monopoly? Did they not destroy competition in as many ruthless and 
illegal ways as they desired? Will this agreement, increase 
competition? Is this agreement good for our future? I believe, along 
with many others, that the answer to all these questions is a 
resounding NO.
    I strongly encourage you to persist in your efforts to 
vigorously bring this case to justice. A justice that will encourage 
competition and send a clear message to Microsoft and any others who 
operate outside the law. Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior 
should be curbed once and for all. I believe it is harmful to our 
future IT economy to allow this evil doer to continue in its illegal 
    Respectfully submitted,
    James R. Felbab
    Hanson, Dodge Design


From: Catherine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is high time this come to an end. Dragging this 
(ridiculous) lawsuit on any further is helping no one. I wish I were 
more eloquent-- but I just want to be heard that some of us are sick 
and tired of this and ready for it to come to an end. Personally, I 
think it should never have happened in the first place.
    Catherine North
    Federal Way, WA


From: SandybyC@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, and one who was supposed to 
have been ``damaged'' by the business practices of Microsoft, 
alleged by their competitors, I must tell you that this action has 
dragged on for much too long. It seems to me that the Settlement 
reached and agreed to by all parties should be the end of it. The 
economy cannot stand any more of the never-ending litigation which 
has been the real cause of damage to me as a consumer and 
stockholder of Microsoft.
    Sandra L. Pratt
    Carmel, CA


From: mark@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Michael.McLagan@ Linux.Org@ inetgw, joh...
Date: 1/3/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Government Anti Trust litigation has achieved 2 things to date.
    1) Bringing the Linux and Open Source communities (as the only 
credible competition that Microsoft faces) to the attention of 
Venture capitalists, the stock market, etc too soon, resulting in 
the destruction of many good companies who were not ready for the 
ruinous competition from the rise of companies that had no business 
being in business... the ones that survived will be stronger, and 
new ones will spring up.. but that does not set aside that fact that 
this entire industry was set back a several years by capitalist 
greed out of control. From the very beginning I'd prefer that this 
case against Microsoft had never happened.... eventually the bully 
gets turned on by everyone else. The effectiveness and Return on 
Investment of Open Source technologies are so stunning that 
Microsoft has been looking for an effective way to battle it, 
discredit it, whatever works and this brings about the second point
    2) Assuring Microsoft that they can beat anyone, and don't need 
to fear even the government, so now they are free to continue as 
they always have, with impunity. The many blatant lies they told in 
court make this clear. Why isn't this a good thing? Because it 
deprives real innovators of the fruits of their innovations, and as 
a result removes the incentive to people to keep our nation in the 
lead technologically. It also reinforces many people's worship of 
the ends despite the means being inappropriate, and this undercuts 
our entire society. Winning is not everything, it is just part of 
life. But isn't Microsoft an innovator? A marketing truism is that 
if you say something often enough and loud enough people will 
believe it. And people don't care enough to find the truth. For any 
innovation that Microsoft has made, it can also be shown who they 
busted in the chops to take it away from them, generally with strong 
arm tactics, and no thought of ethics. This goes all the way back to 
their original product, Microsoft Basic. They've left many a good 
company and organization shattered in their destructive wake. People 
break laws, not companies... and I think they should face penalties 
appropriate to their situations. That certainly has not happened in 
this case. The public interest is not served by encouraging mafia 
like tactics in the name of economic recovery, the very greed and 
business tactics that lead to the recession in the first place.
    The next Einstein will probably be a kid from a third world 
country that had access to a cheap castoff PC, the source code for 
Linux, and the internet. With clubs formed by these kids, that 
country, and other countries that actually allow and encourage 
continued innovation, will then have a new technological revolution. 
It can only happen outside the sphere of Microsoft's control. Linux 
is only the beginning.. and companies that spring up around new 
technologies need the opportunity to succeed.
    Microsoft has 2 strengths, and they have been there from the 
beginning. 1) Convincing sales, marketing & PR, and 2) a willingness 
to be totally ruthless and as unethical as they have to be to get 
what they want the way they want it. And then claim credit for it.
    When have you seen someone who fights clean in the schoolyard 
beaten a dirty fighter? Only if they are much, much better trained, 
especially if smaller. Aren't trust, ethics and morals the fabric of 
our society, especially assumptions behind our legal system? So 
wouldn't the biggest winners be those actually able to get around 
the rules, above the law so to speak?
    If ethics don't stand then our society falls into anarchy. How 
often have you heard ``It's not personal, It's business'' used as a 
justification? But don't people who act this way deprive themselves 
and their organizations of future benefits that might be gained from 
those whom they are cheating? Isn't this counter productive?
    Most people won't believe this, but Microsoft not only has NOT 
invented the computer industry and the internet, but rather they 
hijacked it, and in the process actually slowed it down... and the 
slowdown continues. Now we are paying the price of what they have 
sown. As The founders of our great country knew, freedom requires 
responsibility, and when we abdicate responsibility in great enough 
numbers, we will also lose our freedom in time.
    Microsoft is about making money, selling whatever they can push, 
always creating a new need, a new desire... remind you of anything? 
How about the drug pusher at the schoolyard? Ever wonder why 
computer people are called ``users''? Think of it, an entire economy 
held hostage by one company and what Microsoft chooses to do or not 
do. Thinking that daily or hourly reboots are the way computers 
``are'', and putting up with the unnecessary loss of productivity, 
the continual and often unneeded upgrades. Microsoft is not 
concerned beyond getting your money, and what they sell you being 
just ``good enough'' that they get to keep it that money. What is 
more, as Microsoft slowly takes over the internet, and everyone's 
computers, as they get everyone's data on their servers at MSN, or 
have access to it

[[Page 25000]]

through hidden back doors concealed in proprietary source code on 
your system. These hidden doors could only be found by legions of 
programmers looking at the source. What do you mean that Microsoft 
wouldn't do this? Check your history, they have already been caught 
doing exactly this at least twice. What is next for this 
organization? Where will they stop? When will it get to the point 
that even the US government will not be able to face down this 
entity already capable of buying Nukes should they choose to do so?
    There is a word in Russian ``Pravda'', and it is usually 
translated to english as ``truth'', but it in fact means not 
``truth'', but rather ``what best serves the state''. Read Robert 
Heinlein's extensive essay on the subject ... This is how Microsoft 
defines truth as used in their various articles and whitepapers, not 
to mention what they say in their business dealings and the 
courtroom. This is an opponent the like of which the world has 
rarely seen, and never with as much terrible power and influence as 
is within their grasp within a very short time to come if the 
government does not act appropriately towards them now that the 
battle has been engaged. When will we all wake up?
    Attached to this message is an earlier message I wrote regarding 
what I consider to be equitable remedies, and also a follow up 
message by Jon ``maddog'' Hall, Executive Director of Linux 
International, which has since been published.
    Mark Bolzern
    http://www.Bolzern.Org Phone: 303-690-2806 Fax: 303-693-6064


From: skip@steuart.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been told that this is where opinions on the Microsoft 
settlement should be sent. Please correct me is I am misteaken.
    As I understand the current state of the Microsoft (MS) 
antitrust case, MS has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
position. The proposed settlement is that MS will be subject to 
government oversight for 5 to 7 years. As a 42 year old MIS veteran 
with Math and Computer Science degrees and over 15 years experience 
designing and managing computer systems for companies with up to 
1,500 users I would like to offer a simple vision of what 
``conduct'' the government should insist that MS follow.
    MS has used its dominance of their Operating Systems (OS) to 
achieve dominance of the Applications that run on top of the OS. The 
object of the government oversight should be to break MS's lock on 
the link between the OS and the Applications. The only way to do 
this is to FORCE MS to publish the documented (and undocumented) 
Application Program Interfaces (APIs) in the OS necessary to load 
and run MS Windows Applications. MS will scream bloody murder, and 
try to spin this as un-American, but running an abusive monopoly is 
un-American too. Publishing ALL of the necessary APIs should enable 
other OS vendors to modify their OSs so that they can run industry 
standard Windows Applications (including Microsoft Office). I have 
emulated other OSs like Windows on top of OSs like Macintosh and 
UNIX. so I have seen it work to varying degrees. Unfortunately these 
emulated MS OSs have been problematic because they had to be reverse 
engineered without MS's support. Not only doesn't MS support OS 
emulation, they have been proven in court to sabotage these efforts 
(DRDOS). If the government FORCED MS to cooperate then the other OSs 
could be enhanced to run MS programs natively.
    Compliance would be EASY to monitor. If MS were forced to 
release their OS APIs, then I predict a stampede in the LINUX world 
(and probably the UNIX and Mac world) to support the APIs in order 
to run native Windows Applications. The LINUX community already has 
a global and public means of development and review for projects, 
and I am sure that a Windows port would become a high priority 
multi-year project. LINUX should be used to verify compliance 
because it is the ONLY transparent OS allowing anybody in the world 
to view the source code of the OS. If MS complies then the LINUX 
world will be able to make a workable clone of the MS OS. This OS 
clone would run on top of LINUX and be able to run all MS 
Applications. If MS ``forgets'' to mention some of the APIs, the 
LINUX crowd with its global review system will identify what is 
missing. If a clone MS OS can be built and it runs MS Applications, 
then MS compliance will have been achieved. Microsoft Excel, Word, 
Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Power Point and any other MS 
Applications that the US government uses could be the applications 
used to verify compliance.
    Even though MS would cry bloody murder, they shouldn't worry 
unless they are afraid that their OS is so weak that a LINUX based 
clone could outperform the MS OS. Either way the consumer benefits. 
If the MS OS is superior, then the consumer has two choices: buy the 
MS OS or use the slower but free LINUX clone. If the free LINUX 
version of the MS OS ends up being superior then the consumer is 
allowed to use a higher quality lower priced (free) product. Either 
way the MS monopoly on the OS and the abuses that have resulted from 
the monopoly will be fixed.
    By eliminating MS's monopoly on the OS, I predict a new golden 
age in software development. There should be NO time limit on the 
publication of the APIs, as long as MS makes OSs they should be 
forced to publish the APIs.
    Skip Steuart
    Steuart Investment Company
    Chevy Chase, Maryland


From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:38pm
Subject: Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement proposed by the JUstice Dept is a gfair 
and just dicision for all parties Emewrson H graham


From: RCB1938@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:40pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I really wish our US Government would accept decisions as they 
stand instead of dragging suits out years and years and millions and 
millions of dollars being wasted. A decision was 
reached............let's get on with it! The Federal Government and 
9 states agreed. Let Microsoft ``pay'' its reduced liability and 
let's get on with life! Having been a senior officer in a publically 
traded company for 20 years, I personally know that a company can't 
plan anything until it truly knows where it stands. Think of the 
inefficiencies not to mention the cost! When is our legal system 
going to get into the 21st Century and quit practicing ``Guilty 
until proven innocent''!!!!!!!!
    Bob Burress.


From: AlirezaR@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, 1/3/02
    Thank you for the e-mail and providing me the info.
    I believe we live in the ``Free Enterprise Systems''. My vote is 
for the Microsoft Executive, Bill Gate. I believe that the court 
should support Bill Gate and let him do the job to run the 
technology in our country.


From: Tom Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
    The current ruling is in the best interest of the industry, 
consumer and our countries economy.
    The on going objections originate from competitors who want the 
government to cripple Microsoft, there by giving them an unfair 
advantage over Microsoft. Please throw out the petitions filled 
against Microsoft.
    Tom Lane


From: David Freitag
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The economy has suffered terribly from the overzealous pursuit 
of punitive damages against Microsoft which one of the main 
foundations of the USA economy. Please expedite the current 
agreement and do not allow expansion of the suit as sought by the 
states and competitors of Microsoft. The sooner this litigation is 
completed, the better.
    This e-mail and attachments, if any, may contain confidential 
and/or proprietary information. Please be advised that the 
unauthorized use or disclosure of the information is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this 
message and attachments. Thank you.

[[Page 25001]]


From: Westover, Michael (US-LIHI)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to let you know that I believe the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement is fair and it's time to stop all of the 
Microsoft bashing.
    Michael D. Westover
    Liberty International, e-Commerce
    (617) 574-5765


From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft settlement as submitted by the Justice Dept is 
fair and equitable for all Parties involved.
    Submitted by Emerson H. Graham


From: TNSig@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Leave Microsoft and Bill Gates alone. Their success is earned. 
Allow this settlement to take place.


From: Bob LeVitus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement with Microsoft.
    As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very much in 
favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their 
behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to 
them. The resolution including the dissemination of their software 
and compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads 
of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the 
very point of the trial.
    They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were 
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. It does nothing to 
address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Please don't let them get away with it.
    Bob LeVitus
    Writer and raconteur


From: m.martwick@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit Settlement
    To whom it my concern:
    I am in complete support of the current settlement between 
Microsoft & the DOJ. I think to continue to pursue Microsoft and 
seek additional penalties will in the long term damage the American 
Computer Industry.


From: Jerry Blackwill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to support the justice department in the terms of the 
Microsoft settlement. By taking this action, the justice department 
has put the US on a better economic footing.
    Jerry Blackwill


From: FPCANDEGC@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please conclude your current agreement with Microsoft and ignore 
their competitors
    Thank You
    Frank P.
    Cyrill Jr.


From: RWBurg@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I hope that the government soon stops its harrassment of 
Microsoft. I realize that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on 
operating systems for the personal computers, but that seems to be a 
more reasonable approach than having to deal with multiple operating 
systems. If software developers had to write software for multiple 
operating systems, everything would become more complex and more 
    Sincerely yours,
    Richard W. Burg


From: Utemills@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Complete the Microsoft settlement NOW! It is time we put this 
matter behind us and allow Microsoft an opportunity to get back to 
running its business. Why should our own government keep trying to 
undermine this great American company? Leave Microsoft alone.
    M. Mills


From: tonymi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement proposed by the DOJ is fair and 
adequate, and I would like to see it accepted by the court. I 
believe the demands of the nine holdout states, including my own 
home state of Kansas, have greatly exceeded the scope of any 
remedies needed. As I understand it, antitrust settlements aren't 
supposed to rob the plaintiff of intellectual property, and two of 
the terms proposed by the holdouts do just that, namely the 
requirements that Microsoft provide source code for Internet 
Explorer and license Office for other operating systems.
    I also object to the request that Microsoft provide a stripped-
down version of Windows. I'm a retired software engineer with 30 
years of experience, and I know this idea is just impractical. 
Features that the holdouts want removed work much more effectively 
if they are integrated into the operating system, not slapped on as 
an afterthought. It's analogous to air conditioning on an 
automobile; factory air always works better than an add-on unit. 
Smart customers would avoid the product, and customers who did buy 
it would regret it, so what's the point of forcing Microsoft to 
produce it? It also runs counter to industry trends; every modern 
operating system now includes these added features, and customers 
expect them. If Microsoft is burdened with this requirement, they 
should be allowed to affix a prominent label saying ``This product 
was designed for you by the Attorneys General of Kansas, California, 
etc. ... Please forward all complaints to them.''
    I believe that the AGs of the holdout states only want to 
prolong the case for political reasons (to placate Microsoft's 
rivals) or for greed, hoping to somehow milk a windfall from 
Microsoft. I don't think they are the least bit interested in 
justice, only in benefiting themselves. Prolonging the case is 
holding back the high-tech industry, and therefore the entire 
economy. I request the court to accept the settlement as a fair one, 
move on, and help our country recuperate.
    Thank you,
    Tony Miller
    316 Lawrence Avenue
    Lawrence, KS 66049


From: JennetteWilson@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:02pm
Subject: (no subject)


From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my dismay at the settlement concerning 
Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in forcing 
their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the 
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I 
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer 
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, 
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users. 
Microsoft Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a 
serious security threat that has caused much expense to our support 
systems. Because of their overwhelming

[[Page 25002]]

market, they are slow to respond to the problems they cause and slow 
to address quality issues in their products. People have grown to 
accept what they provide, regardless of inferior quality, security 
problems or even cost.
    I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the 
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not 
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against 
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    (801) 566-1083
    Joseph F. Buchanan--
    Internet: Joseph.Buchanan@utah.edu
    University of Utah
    TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
    --(really ML2751C)
    Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
    -- (801) 581-8814
    X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/joseph/pgpkey


From: Aqualyst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ:
    Although I may disagree with some of the ways in which the 
Microsoft Corporation conducts its business strategy, Microsoft is 
no more harmful to me than the US Post Office, the local cable TV 
company, or any other of a myriad of companies that, unlike 
Microsoft, are monopolies in the true sense of the word.
    These companies are granted monopolies by government force, 
against which I have no recourse except to do without. Conversely, 
regarding Microsoft products, I can always cast my vote against them 
by purchasing other products. I can think of no area in which 
Microsoft actually holds a true monopoly; neither in operating 
systems nor in any other software currently in the marketplace. I 
can use an open-source operating system such as Linux on my PC, or I 
can purchase a computer from Apple that requires me to adjust to, 
and buy software compatible with, their proprietary operating 
system. I can use Netscape, and often do, to browse the Internet 
from my PC with Windows installed.
    I can purchase excellent word processing software from Corel, 
instead of using Microsoft Word. I can even purchase a complete, 
integrated Office Suite without spending one cent on Microsoft 
products. The list goes on and on.
    Here's what I can't do...
    I can't subscribe to a competitive cable TV provider, who may 
offer better service at a lower price... I must use the one granted 
a monopoly in my neighborhood. I can't use a telephone company that 
may offer more value and trouble-free service in my neighborhood...I 
must use the government-granted monopoly in my calling area. I can't 
change my provider for electrical service... I must use the power 
company with a government-enforced monopoly in my area.
    I'm sure you get my point here. The Department of Justice (if 
you're truly seeking justice) should be striving to eliminate all of 
the government-enforced monopolies in this country that do untold 
damage to the economy. If you question the damage that government 
intervention in the marketplace can cause, I would refer you to the 
situation in California regarding power generation. Microsoft has 
earned its market position. It deserves to hold its dominance over 
the competition because it continues to provide me with ever-
improving software and hardware, which enriches my life and makes me 
individually more productive. The best thing the DOJ could do would 
be to repeal the Sherman Antitrust Act and get out of the 
marketplace. The term ``laissez faire'' is not just a cute phrase. 
It is a caveat, and a marketplace axiom, that the DOJ, and the rest 
of the government, should observe. There is not now, nor has there 
ever been, a justification for government manipulation of business. 
The marketplace will ultimately take care of itself through the 
profit motive. The Sherman Act, itself, is an atrocity which was 
enacted to resolve a situation caused by government intervention. 
One doesn't cure an illness by administering more of the poison 
which caused it.
    Robert E. Mehan 1151 Carrollton Ave. Metairie, LA 70005


From: Joan Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am all for the comprehensive agreement that the Federal 
Goverment and nine states reached with Microsoft. Enough is enough.
    Joan T. Clarke Fairview N. C. 28730


From: Kbobbi@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: the Tunney Act
    For the sake of the public at large please be assured that this 
settlement is in the public interest and to continue more litigation 
against Microsoft will only hurt the American economy and benefit a 
few special interests. Please do NOT continue more litigation 
against Microsoft and continue to hurt the economy.
    The attack on Microsoft has already done damage to the stock 
market. Just go back to when it emerged during the last 
administration and see the effect on the market every time a new 
announcement came out about punishing Microsoft. Its not Microsoft 
that gets punished its the American Public and Freedom that suffers.
    George Korey
    060 Marcus Ct
    Pinole CA 94564


From: Peter Kain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please stop wasting taxpayers money litigating against 
Microsoft. It is an inefficient use of the taxpayers money. I buy 
and use many of the products they sell and do so willingly. Why? 
They are great products. They are reliable. Most importantly, they 
allow me to communicate with others who also use Microsoft products.
    Enough is enough. Let's move on. There is a time and place for 
pursuing justice, and that time has passed. The horse was dead a 
long time ago.
    Let's not beat it any more.
    Peter J. Kain
    Peter Kain Lighting Accessories Inc.


From: Bob Beaudoin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment for 
Microsoft along with 8 other states (California, Connecticut, 
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and West Virginia).
    The Attorney Generals' of these states are correct in pursuing 
Harsher penalities. The DOJ settlement is not a deterent on what 
Microsoft has done to many other companies. The DOJ needs to support 
the case of these states against Microsoft.
    Bob Beaudoin
    5435 Riley Lane
    Murray, UT 84107
    Bob Beaudoin
    Computer Support
    Plant Operations
    University of Utah
    801 585-5919


From: Patrick McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern--
    I would like to urge the DOJ to back off Microsoft and allow 
this settlement to go forward.
    Very truly yours,
    Al Maiolo President
    Al J. Maiolo
    Aero Hardware & Parts Company, Inc.
    130 Business Park Dr.
    Armonk, NY 10504
    E-mail: ajm@aerohardwareparts.com
    Fax: (914) 273-8550
    Phone: (914) 273-8612


From: FAY243@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:12pm
Subject: (no subject)

[[Page 25003]]

    243 CR. 2446
    SALTILLO, MS 38866


From: Henry G Absher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you in support of the recent settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. After three long years of court 
battles and round-the-clock negotiations, a fair and reasonable 
settlement was reached, and then we find out that there are some who 
feel it needs further examination. What about spending our dollars 
and time on examining our current economic status or our nation's 
security? These might be more pressing issues at the moment.
    This settlement was not only well thought out, but was 
formulated with all parties in mind. Not only did Microsoft give up 
a great deal to allow the competitive market to flourish, but also 
they agreed to allow these companies to sue them if, in fact, they 
weren't complying. The settlement addresses everything from pricing 
agreements to code disclosure, and this should be considered a real 
coup for competitors. Microsoft has bowed down to dozens of demands, 
and now we need to let the technology industry get back to business.
    The American economy could use some boosting at the moment, and 
holding up the IT sector and their competitive growth can only harm 
things. I urge you to support this settlement by helping to see that 
it no longer gets challenged from those in the federal government 
who would compromise it. Thank you for your time and effort on this 
    Henry Absher


From: alfred mizner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've worked in the technology industry for over 10 years and I 
have been mystified by the governments apparent attempt(through 
obvious competitor funding) destroy Microsoft. It is because of 
their leadership and support for building a common PC platform that 
we are not still working on disparate and disjoint systems and 
software platforms. My comment on the settlement is that it goes 
well beyond what I think is necessary or appropriate. Therefore I 
would request that this be the end of this odyssey and start putting 
money and focus in a more appropriate place.


From: GrumpyWes@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please get off Bill's back.!!!!!!!!!! All he and Mrs. Gates do 
is good for the people and kids. Not to mention what he has done for 
the Kids. We are in a lot of bad times now , and mostly in Seattle.
    Thank You
    Wes Boyd.


From: Sumit Pal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is certainly a positive one for the industry and 
the American people at large.


From: mryan@telebyte.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's time to move on and get off Microsoft's back. This 
market is moving too rapidly for anyone to maintain an edge too 
    Matt Ryan, CLU
    9080 Illahee Rd NE
    Bremerton, WA 98311


From: Mitch Millar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This case has been going on too long and has especially added 
detrimentally to all Technology stock losses in the last two years.
    Microsoft is highly competitive, all successful companies are. 
If they are not breaking the law, get over it!!
    Special interest factions are trying to skim the cream off of 
Microsoft's success because they cannot or are unwilling to compete. 
Leave Microsoft alone!!
    The technology Microsoft provides make the market for the rest 
of us out there in the software world.


From: Cathryn22@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a public school teacher in Wisconsin and am writing on 
behalf of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I support 
the goals that are set forth in this settlement to establish an 
independent foundation comprised of educators to distribute 
technology funds, computers and software to the nation's poorest 
    As a public school teacher, I am made aware of the importance of 
technology on a daily basis. I am also well aware of the huge 
technology gap that exists between wealthy and poor communities. 
This settlement would make a big difference in Wisconsin in that we 
are below the national average when it comes to computer 
availability for students. These funds could also help provide 
teachers with sufficient technology training, another area in which 
we are behind in Wisconsin.
    Technology can be a powerful teaching tool and if we are going 
to fully prepare today's students for tomorrow's world, we have to 
stay current and we have to make technology available to everyone. 
In my school district we are just beginning to see the impact that 
technology can have. We recently passed a referendum that enabled 
the district to purchase one computer per teacher, and is slowly 
striving to have one computer for every 6 students. While that still 
is sorely behind what we see in the business world, it has already 
made a big difference. A settlement such as this could assist other 
districts, as well as my own, in obtaining the technology necessary 
for education in the 21st century.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Cathy Atkinson
    Social Studies Teacher
    Waukesha, WI.


From: TRENTWOLF@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I believe that the US Government would find it's self better 
occupied paying more attention to the terrorist problem, the 
airplane security problem than bothering with Microsoft. This 
company only does good, helps our nations civilian and military, 
with the latest in technology and contributes computers to the 
nations libraries, provides jobs and pays its taxes to support the 


From: DADavis22@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:24pm


From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (added my address)
    (This is the same message sent before, but I forgot to add my 
mailing address) I would like to express my dismay at the settlement 
concerning Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in 
forcing their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the 
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I 
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer 
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, 
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users. 

[[Page 25004]]

Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a serious 
security threat that has caused much expense to our support systems. 
Because of their overwhelming market, they are slow to respond to 
the problems they cause and slow to address quality issues in their 
products. People have grown to accept what they provide, regardless 
of inferior quality, security problems or even cost.
    I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the 
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not 
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against 
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    7472 Silver Circle
    West Jordan, UT 84084-3946
    (801) 566-1083
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    --Internet: Joseph.Buchanan@utah.edu
    University of Utah
    TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
    --(really ML2751C)
    Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
    --(801) 581-8814
    X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/pgpkey


From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement:
    This is to express my disapproval of prolonged litigation in the 
Microsoft case. The settlement reached is fair and should be 
    It is definitely not in the interest of the public or the US 
economy to continue court proceedings.
    Konrad M.Kempfe, MD
    715 Bogar Drive
    Selinsgrove, PA 17870


From: Kevin McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is imperative that any settlement should be in the 
form of CASH only It should NOT be in the form of additional gifts 
or sales of Microsoft product to schools and others.
    I would like to see this case brought to a swift conclusion, but 
not at the expense of other firms marketing competing products.
    Kevin McDaniel


From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:27pm
Subject: My 2 cents
    This case against Microsoft has been poorly executed by the 
government, companies and handful of states taking part. It is also 
quite hypocritical of those companies because they simply do not 
have the products to available to replace the Microsoft software. I 
could see their point if they actually had something to sell me but 
they don't. Have you ever tried writing a letter, doing a 
spreadsheet, made a greeting card, edited a photograph on a UNIX 
machine? I didn't think so. All these companies have a perfect right 
to manufacture competing products, but they dont, even for their own 
die hard users.
    In addition I as a consumer feel that the deal Microsoft gives 
me is a tremendous value. Where else can I get a state of the art 
operating system, with many applications for under $200? There is no 
case here.
    Microsoft software has done more for our economy, military 
strength, and business productivity than any single company in 
    Let them keep it up. Or invite them to leave the US and become a 
corporation of lets say, India. I know the country of India would 
welcome them with open arms, unlike our own government which scorns 


From: William J. Crittenden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
    There are basically three types of people who have opinions on 
the U.S. v. Microsoft case:
    (1) People who have no idea what the law says or what Microsoft 
has actually done. (These people should be ignored)
    (2) People who have some vested interest in supporting Microsoft 
or some ideological axe to grind such that they support Microsoft 
for reasons that have nothing to do with the case, Microsoft's 
obvious and unrepentant guilt, or appropriate remedies.
    (3) (Myself included) People who are absolutely outraged by 
Microsoft's pattern of deliberate illegal conduct and its total 
disregard for the law. READ THE DAMN COURT OF APPEALS OPINION!!! IT 
SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!! Bill Gates is a crook and a liar, and he has 
created, illegally maintained and repeatedly abused a monopoly in 
computer operating systems. The harm to consumers is staggering.
    Windows is an overpriced and unreliable pile of crap, but most 
people have no real choice (Apple is an expensive alternative, and 
there are no other widely used consumer operating systems). In some 
cases, more than half of the cost of a new computer is the preloaded 
Microsoft software (which costs Microsoft almost nothing to make). 
Many non-Microsoft software products perform poorly because 
Microsoft is constantly fiddling with Windows and refuses to release 
the source code that developers need to write for.
    Windows XP includes many new bundled features which clearly 
should be sold as separate applications and not as part of the 
operating system. This practice is clearly illegal and destroys 
innovation and competition. If this practice is not stopped, 
Microsoft will soon have a monopoly in virtually the entire personal 
computer software industry.
    William J. Crittenden
    Law Office
    1325 Fourth Avenue, #1730
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 729-0259


From: DYMOND Christopher S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am shocked at what appears to be a disregard for anti-trust 
laws and the lack of timeliness of enforcing them.
    I ask that you please issue a punishment for Microsoft's 
violations that is both sufficiently punitive to dissuade future 
companies from behaving as Microsoft has and that it is done 
    Christopher Dymond
    Salem, Oregon


From: David Ayala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Please accept this message as my support for the 
proposed settlement. As a result, I believe Microsoft has learned to 
act and behave in a manner that promotes fair trade and 
competitiveness in the business world. Thank you.
    D. Ayala, Jr.
    West Hills, California


From: John McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement Please lay off Microsoft. I have no 
financial interest in the company.


From: SHerman999@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:34pm
Subject: microsoft case
    please leave microsoft alone. the consumers like me are not 
complaining, only competitors who aren't as inovative, nor as 
consumer oriented. microsoft has done an excellent job for the publi 
worldwide. it's time the justice dept focused on somebody committing 
a crime that hurts the public. leave them alone and allow them to 
get back to the business of making a major contribution to the 
public and business world.


From: paul kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:32pm
Subject: RE; Microsoft settlement.
    Dear DOJ:
    I have followed the MSFT ``case'' and want to add my voice to 
those of many others. The 18 States continuing efforts to force MSFT 
to divest is a poor use of valuable time and seems to be largely 
politically motivated at

[[Page 25005]]

this time. My vote is to move on quickly to more pressing issues, 
such as Enron and collusion between accountancy and business today 
that are costing consumers and shareholders Billions.
    Thank you.
    P Kelly, MD


From: Sandy Armsrtong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In early 2000, I had made investments, mostly with money 
inherited from my mother's lifetime savings, on the advise of my 
investment counselors, for myself and my children. I had about one 
fourth of what I needed to retire and my children had about enough 
for college educations and a future down payment on a house. My 
children were set for a good start in life and I had a start toward 
financial security for my future. Then, disaster came, in the form 
of a suit against Microsoft. In my opinion, this suit was the 
catalyst of the tremendous downfall in the stock market. This 
occurrence has left me and my children with only 40% of the money we 
had in early 2000. I never felt that Microsoft was at fault in the 
first place. What has happened to Americans who have budgeted and 
saved all of their lives to make their and their children's futures 
secure in order to improve profits of a few disgruntled corporations 
who were not able to compete with the innovations of Microsoft is 
very wrong.
    Nothing can be done to compensate for the devastation caused to 
the American people by those who brought the suit against Microsoft, 
but the best that can be done is to finalize the Microsoft 
settlement which has been agreed upon by nine states as well as the 
federal government. It is time to put an end to this suit. It is my 
hope that such an decision will act as another catalyst to bring the 
stock market once more to more favorable gains and that my children 
and I may recoup some of our tremendous losses.
    PLEASE, rule in favor of the present Microsoft agreement
    Thank you,
    Sandra M. Armstrong
    Santa Cruz, California


From: LuLuFin@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:35pm
Subject: Final Determination of this case
    This has gone on far too long. I think it is too strong against 
Microsoft. It requires that Microsoft disclose all the interface and 
related technical information for the middleware use and much more I 
don't think is fair. If Microsoft is smart enough to have figured it 
all out why do they have to give it away. Let the competitors come 
up with another way to get their middleware to be compatible. It 
seems to me you are punishing someone, who has been creative, 
because the other party can't come up with a better idea and 
product. If Microsoft agreed then let's get it over with and move 
    Lucille Finamore


From: Brown, Terry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the entire pursuit of Microsoft for antitrust 
violations a witch hunt against a company that is guilty of nothing 
more than engaging in production and free trade in what, upon my 
last reading of the constitution, was a free and capitalistic 
society. Based on the evidence and judgments I have reviewed to 
date, I oppose any form of punishment or sanction against Microsoft. 
Let the free market reign.
    Terry S. Brown
    Vice President, Manufacturing and Process Industry Practice
    Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Inc.
    55 Old Bedford Road Lincoln, MA 01773
    Tel. 781.402.1183
    Fax 703.991.7542
    Cell 781.929.2713 tbrown@bscol.com
    Join Balanced Scorecard Online Free at http://www.bscol.com


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: madodel@ptdprolog.net>
To: piu@doj.ca.gov>; attorney.general@po.state.ct.us>; 
ag@oag.state.fl.us>; consumer@ag.state.ia.us>; GENERAL@ksag.org>; 
webmaster@ago.state.ma.us>; attorney.general@state.mn.us>; 
uag@att.state.ut.us>; consumer@wvnet.edu>; timb001@attglobal.net>; 
Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm writing to ask you to consider removing all preload contract 
terms that require only Microsoft operating systems as well as 
requiring Microsoft to release all information regarding their 
proprietary file formats and APIs to be as part of any real 
settlement of their predatory monopoly finding. As it stands now the 
proposed settlement is worthless and a complete sellout by the USDOJ 
and does absolutely nothing other then validate their monopoly 
status and treat it as if it is a natural outcome. Microsoft has 
developed and expanded their monopoly by forcing hardware 
manufacturers to only pre-install
    Microsoft operating systems on personal computers for years. It 
is a disgrace that IBM will not pre-load its own superior computer 
operating system (OS/2) on its own personal computers. Last year 
during the trial, several major manufacturers had declared they 
would offer the Linux operating system as a pre-load option. Then it 
was only to be available on a few models, then only on one or two 
models, now, after the farce of a settlement outcome of the trial, 
try and find more then a handful if any among all the major 
manufacturers. Microsoft can only continue its monopoly by coersion, 
requiring only its own software on every PC and charging a Microsoft 
tax on those of us who purchase these systems, but don't want and 
will not use their products. The only real solution is to make the 
operating system an option and all systems must be allowed to be 
sold without an operating system, or with a choice including but not 
necessarily limited to, OS/2, eComStation Linux, FreeBSD, and 
Microsoft's current version of WIndows.
    Currently on my chosen platform, IBM's OS/2 and Serenity 
System's eComStation (an OEM version of OS/2), I can get some 
interchange of documents with Microsoft Word and Excel using Lotus 
SmartSuite or Star Office, but other formats like PowerPoint and 
Microsoft Media Player are completely inaccessible. Open formats and 
APIs can be ported over to non-Microsoft platforms and break 
Microsoft's stranglehold on the world's information. Making all 
their proprietary formats and APIs open and freely available will 
allow those of us who don't use Microsoft products to not be locked 
out of electronic discourse and electronic media features.
    Please stand firm and refuse to give in to the monopolist 
Microsoft organization.
    Mark Dodel --
    From the OS/2 Desktop of: Mark Dodel
    ``The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate 
the growth of p rivate power to a point where it becomes stronger 
than their democratic State it self. That in it's essence, is 
Fascism--ownership of government by an individ ual, by a group or by 
any controlling private power.'' Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message 
proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``sbskinner'' sskinner@helicon.net>
To: consumer@wvnet.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:45 PM
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Ms. Mills,
    I am delighted that you continue to reject the administration's 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. Although the below 
experience I had this morning is trivial, I thought you might like 
to view it from a very basic consumer standpoint. I am sending this 
also to the AGs of Massachusetts, California, West Virginia, 
Minnesota and to the District of Columbia (I haven't at this time 
located the remaining AGs rejecting the settlement).
    Thank you again, and happy holidays.
    Suzanne B. Skinner
To: Microsoft Customer Service
    Dated December 15, 2001
    ``For the last week or more, every time Ia fter I signed into 
hotmail, whether via Netscape Communicator 4.78 or from IE 6, the 
home page either didn't load at all, OR I had to keep refreshing the 
page to make it load.
    Then, next, while trying to access my inbox/junk mail boxes, the 
same thing occurred. Finally, this very morning and as I speak, when 
I logged on via IE, half the home page appeared on the screen AND 
the other half of the screen had that disgusting white page that 
said to ``Detect network settings,'' etc, because my browser could 

[[Page 25006]]

support nahda nahda nahda... Also my IE often a/or continually 
rebuffs my ability to access even the most innocent of sites: e.g. 
last night to get to Google I had to perform the most herculean 
efforts and even then, most of the links (e.g. such real horrors as 
perhaps symantec, ancestry.com, also came up with the white 
``network ... page and I was unable to get through. Fully 
exasperated, I then disabled cookies entirely (usually I keep them 
to return to sender), and the same tragic story was repeated. 
Netscape, while giving me the very same Hotmail issues, does allow 
me, even with cookies returned to sender, access to these above-
mentioned wild sites without problem.
    Suzanne B. Skinner
    P.S. Speaking of bugs, at least three or four times over the 
each of the last five or six weeks, that ``do you wish to debug 
now'' error pops up. I would be glad to debug, if only the process 
didn't seem to occupy a vast amount of time, thereby leaving me too 
exhausted to finish up the rest of what I have to do online.
    P.P. S. NOW: I am unable to send this email to you because, even 
THIS IS REALLY BAD, GUYS. I have to cut and paste this complaint 
into a word document to save it so I can send it via some other 
route. What a disaster.
    P.P.S.S. NEXT NEXT: I have tried to follow your rotten process 
to get to tech support, and low nothing I can do can get me there. I 
am only trying to report a problem with Hotmail; I have been sent 
all you're your 900 sites and get stuck back where I started. This 
is a really asinine ``computer lack of support'' program. I could 
get Bill Gates or the Pentagon more easily than getting through to 
you.no wonder every one I know is hoping that Linux is us and 
running lots of stuff in the near future. Just now, immediately 
before I was retuned to the ``get help from a Microsoft support (the 
operative word) professional, I was given a full screen announcement 
that LO there was a run time error. Are you guys talking with each 
other? Where the heck is the ability to reach customer service? I am 
planning to send a copy of this notice to the justice departments 
anti-monopoly unit, as well as to the attorneys general of every 
state and--if I have to--every European Community nation that 
refuses to settle the anti-trust suit against you.
    Now I have to find another way to reach Customer Disservice, 
without going through this painful and futile process.''
    As an afternote, once again, you might be interested to know 
that when I went to the WV AGs website just a few minutes earlier, 
and tried to send this email to that office, the above-mentioned 
``can't be displayed: detect network settings, etc'' came up and 
prevented my emailing Mr. McGraw. Very small potatoes, but very big 
irritation--plus two more requests from Microsoft for runtime error 
and another two requests to debug. Just keeps us chuckling, doesn't 
    Thank you again.


From: Allan Tingey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer scientist working in human genetics research at 
the University of Utah and I just wanted to pass along my feelings 
about the Microsoft settlement. I can tell you, without question, 
that the Microsoft monopoly has made our work more difficult and 
wasted considerable tax dollars. Because there is no viable 
alternative, we are forced to purchase Windows systems for each 
workers desk so that the usual desktop applications are available. 
The Microsoft operating systems, however, are not adequate for our 
research so additional UNIX systems must be purchased. The 
incompatibility of the systems creates many problems and the extra 
hardware and training needed to operate both systems is very 
    ``Multi-user'' operating systems like UNIX, Linux, and now Mac-
OS, are able to handle the work of many people if only the 
application software were available. The ``single-user'' operating 
systems from Microsoft require the purchase of a personal computer 
and software licenses for every user and it is incredibly wasteful. 
Because of the Microsoft monopoly, tax dollars are purchasing 50 to 
100 times as many computers as are really needed with similar 
inefficiencies in software licensing.
    As a computer scientist and a tax payer, I hope to see the 
Microsoft monopoly completely dismantled so a more efficient method 
of computing can be adopted.
    Allan Tingey
    University of Utah
    20 South 2030
    East Salt Lake City, UT 84112


From: Diane (038) Roland Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that Microsoft has done no wrong and should not be 
punished for their actions. Was Ford guilty in the early 1900's, 
when he dominated the auto industry? The courts said no. I see a 
remarkable similarity to the Microsoft suit, and the Ford suit. 
Those who can't compete, have a ``sour grapes'' attitude. I worked 
on top secret programs that the government and the vendor both used 
Microsoft programs to exchange data via the internet, because the 
``system'' worked. This saved the government and the taxpayer lots 
of money.
    Microsoft has done the world a favor by developing what amounts 
to be a ``standard'' that the world can use to advance all parties. 
To punish them for this great accomplishment, would be wrong. All 
government, should stay out of business that does no one harm. If 
you want to get involved in bad business practices, look into Enron. 
How about when oil companies ``conspire'' to raise prices ($3.00/
gal) for no reason?
    Thank you for your time and efforts.
    H.R. Freeman


From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Robert Lyday'' rhl43@oakhurst.net>
To: consumer@wvnet.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    The government's proposed settlement is a disaster. Please do 
not settle according to these standards! Hold out for a settlement 
that will really hold MS' feet to the fire! The government's 
settlement will do almost nothing at all to stop MS' illegal 
behavior, which has almost destroyed computing. MS must be stopped 
for the sake of the industry and businesses and consumers all over 
the world! Bob
    Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows '95.


From: Dan Broughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish to express my opinion that this litigation has gone on 
long enough! Without Microsoft where would PC users be? Would the 
``information superhighway'' be all that it has become without the 
innovative software produced by Microsoft? The answer to both these 
questions is no! It`s beyond me why the FEDS deem success a criminal 


From: Caltax1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: As taxpayers and citizens of the US, we are frustrated by 
the ongoing legal battle waged by your department against Microsoft. 
It is time to move on. The proposed remedies are enough! Let's move 
on and spend our energies and resources on rebuilding our damaged 
nation, not on tearing down one of our most innovative companies. 
Let's use our resources, enriched by Microsoft and other technology-
related companies, to take our country to the next level.
    Accept the proposed settlement and encourage the hold-out states 
to do the same.
    Thank you,
    Callene Lumbard
    Callene Lumbard
    4600 177 Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98006


From: Scuta101@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25007]]

    Please add my name to the list of those who strongly oppose the 
proposed settlement agreement. The proposed settlement does nothing 
to curb the competitive tactics of a proven monopolistic predator 
and Microsoft continues to violate provisions of the Sherman Act 
(i.e., break the law) even as I type this e-mail. Surely our legal 
system can do more to ensure justice than the politically inspired 
``sell out'' agreement offered by the Justice Department.
    Mike Perkins


From: Michael Brunskill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Public Comment Period
    Dear Sirs,
    As a computer user who has participated in the evolution of 
computer systems from the old teletype terminals of the Dartmouth 
Timesharing System on which I learned to program in Basic in 1973 to 
the incredible PC technology that exists today, I can say 
emphatically that Microsoft has done more to improve and enhance 
computing than any other single entity.
    To say that Microsoft has stiffled competition is ludicrous. The 
cost of software, absolute and relative, has plunged dramatically 
because of the WORLD's acceptance Microsoft's Windows operating 
system. The very fact that the closest competitor, LINUX, is FREE to 
consumers proves this point. Another competing product to 
Microsoft's Office product line, Star Office, is also FREE, and like 
all others that want to have any chance of acceptance, the files are 
fully exchangeable with Microsoft systems. I well remember the days 
of several competing word processing systems, none of which were 
interchangeable, which truly hampered commerce. Microsoft, though 
it's innovation and superior products, has set the standard 
WORLDWIDE for consumer software interoperability far better than any 
government organization ever could. This in turn has lead to 
sustained increases in worker productivity, which have been a major 
factor in the economic boom of the 90's.
    One of the largest detractors of Microsoft is America OnLine. 
While Microsoft has opened up it's operating system to any competent 
software developer, AOL software is proprietary and closed. They do 
not use industry standards for such basic services as email and news 
services, requiring the use of their unique software for this 
purpose. Please consider the source in evaluating the objections to 
this settlement, which is still punative to Microsoft in my opinion 
and entirely uneccessary.
    Best Regards
    Mike Brunskill
    76 Cranbury Neck Road
    Cranbury, NJ 08512


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has built the best mousetrap. Let them sell it.
    Why should my cost include the wages of half of the lawyers in 
Washington. Please draw this to a close.


From: Bertram Kundert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:48pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional of 11 years standing, I have little 
confidence that the stated remedies will do much to restrain 
Microsoft from past anti-competitive practices. More safe guards and 
clear punishment for transgressions need to be in place. As long as 
they can claim that adding programs to the operating system is 
``innovation'' they can use their monopoly power to squeeze out any 
new concept that appears, and claim it for themselves. This is how 
they have consistently acted in the past and there seems no reason 
to believe that they will change in the future.
    Bertram Kundert
    University of Utah
    101 Wasatch Drive
    Eccles Broadcast Center
    Salt Lake City,
    Utah 84112


From: BobJ8806@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern, I feel strongly that the current 
settlement that was reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department 
is fair and equitable. It makes no sense to continue the current law 
suit being made by several states. If half of the current law suit 
particpants agreed to the settlement, then why are the half trying 
to prolong the process. The longer the case continues, the more it 
going to cost the tax payers. Microsoft has been a pillar for the 
High Tech industry and without them and their contributions, I don't 
believe the many industries that exists today could have existed. 
Microsoft is a business that has been very successful and because 
they have been successful, others in the same field are just jealous 
of their accomplishements. How many companies in the world have not 
done ``things'' that would increase their assets, even if it were a 
little not according to Anti-Monopoly rules.
    I am glad that the current judge in this case is taking the 
appropriate actions to end this ridicules time consuming case 
against a respectable company that has been and will continue to be 
successful. Their projects and service to the customers is great and 
to say that they are monopolizing the software market, and that 
consumers do not have a choice, is really stupid. Let the company be 
and stop wasting tax payers money for a few companies that can't 
stand the competition.


From: Linda Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I give thanks that a settlement can be reached and am anxious 
for this great company to be able to get back to work on what they 
do best without fear of government intervention.
    Linda Johnson, 308 Seventh Street
    Fort Madison, Iowa 52627


From: Jim McKinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the government should be happy with any settlement from 
Microsoft. In my opinion, the government should leave Microsoft 
alone to do whatever is necessary for it (and the rest of the tech 
industry) to survive.
    Jim McKinney
    14691 Bueno Drive
    Chino Hills, CA 91709
    Professor, Mathematics; Calif. State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona


From: herb1000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time the DOJ put this mess to rest. We do not approve 
of our tax dollars being used to help certain competitors compete 
with Microsoft. This is supposed to be a free market. If IBM's OS2, 
Linux and Unix cannot compete with Windows, it is not the Goverments 
problem. You are in danger of unfairly destroying the only 
competition the huge AOL-Time Warner conglomorate has.
    This has never been about protecting consumers.......it IS about 
helping certain competitors who made some poor business decisions.
    Herb & Loretta DeVaan
    1749 Tanner Circle Henderson NV 89012


From: FarhnerB@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:54pm
Subject: MS Opinion
    We need a technologist and entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Let's 
settle this thing and move on, hopefully without disabling the 
software and costing the consumer more money.
    Having lived in the silicon valley for some 20+years, I have 
confidence that technology will always be competitive.


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice: For years the competitors of Microsoft 
have been trying to force it to permit them to use its successful 
technology, a technology which they themselves could not develop, 
and in the process tried to viciously destroy Microsoft. Microsoft 
quite naturally resisted these efforts, but finally an agreement has 
been reached by most of those involved. However, a small remaining 
greedy cadre of states and competitors are hanging on for the 

[[Page 25008]]

The judge should recognize the motivations of this cadre and end 
this process with the Agreement for the good of the country


From: Vulich@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:56pm
Subject: Settlement
    I cannot understand why this case is still going on because of a 
few states who apparently are not tending their own affairs and are 
cheating their constituents while they are squandering their time 
and their state's money while they are away from the real work they 
should be doing and wallowing in their 5 minutes of fame.
    Microsoft has done more for more people throughout the world 
than any other company in history. Thanks to Bill Gates and 
Microsoft, and the wise decision I made years ago to buy their 
stock, I am assured of a decent retirement. I am sick and tired of 
seeing success being punished in our country and as soon as someone 
has it the leeches come out of the woodwork to bleed them dry with 
idiotic lawsuits, etc. PLEASE, let's get over it and let Microsoft 
progress and continue to do so much good for so many.
    Malena Preston
    Bothell, WA.


From: Bplshrine@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn't it about time to let go and let the settlement go forward.
    Billy P. Langfeldt, 3115 25th Street, Boulder, CO 80304-2842 
eMail--BPLSHRINE@CS.COM. Let it GO!!


From: Oscar Myre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I find the proposed Microsoft settlement to be 
    It fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: 
halting the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry, 
and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Please don't except the settlement. Thank you.
    God Bless,
    Oscar Myre
    360.575.9839 (office)
    305.422.8285 (fax)


From: Fred Fiechter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Let the Microsoft settlement stand and keep the few 
special interests with their large lobying budgets out of the 
resolution process. Our system of justice and our nation are ready 
to move on in the interest of fairness and the American economic 
system. Enough is enough!
    Frederick C. Fiechter III
    162 Stone Block Row
    Wilm., DE 19807


From: Nick Trikouros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion this has been a plot by Microsoft's competitors to 
derail the company. ``We can't compete with them so lets get 
together and sue.'' What went on in the Jackson court was a 
travesty. That he is still a sitting judge is a joke. I also believe 
that this case has harmed our economy by giving the EC an excuse to 
follow through with their version. I can't prove this, but I feel 
that they (EC) were emboldened to stop the GE/Honeywell merger. This 
situation with the states not excepting the compromise is nothing 
but politics by the (would be Governors/Senators) State Attorney 
Generals. For the sake of the industry and our economy, this should 
end now.
    Nicholas M. Trikouros


From: Atlas Int'l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe the DOJ has buckled to the very thugs it purports to 
protect U.S. citizens from. Microsoft has done nothing but bully its 
way to the top of the technology heap by infiltrating one segment of 
tech business sector after the other, infecting each with its own 
brand of assimilation or destruction.
    In `punishing' Microsoft by literally forcing it into a market 
in which it is yet have a stranglehold (the education market) you 
are in effect bowing to the power of the `almighty' MS. This disease 
of a company needs to be broken up, disbanded or otherwise 
prohibited from entering and dominating other markets--not forced 
into ones they've yet to conquer.
    Please know that I could easily write volumes on topics ranging 
from free competition, business ethics, the bastardization of 
corporate America right down to basic criminal acts and corporate 
responsibility. But, as you are no doubt busy weeding through 
hundreds of thousands of such letters, let me just cast my vote of 
disapproval at the job being done by the government.
    Bob Holkan
    8109 Otium Way
    Antelope, CA
    95843 (916) 725-4055


From: tlcarhart@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider immediate settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case. Only competitors of MS and the various attorneys benefit from 
dragging it on and on.
    Tom and Betty Carhart, Houston, Texas


From: FRKFRANKK3@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this litigation should stop right now. The settlement is 
fair, and any delay can only prolong the recession.
    Frank Keeshan


From: Spilger Philip G (Phil) PSNS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice,
    As a consumer, I want to see this lawsuit against Microsoft 
settled. My own personal opinion is we consumers have only benefited 
from the Microsoft Corporation's innovations. The accusations 
against Microsoft are ludicrous. Unfortunately, a few special 
interests are attempting to use this review period to derail the 
settlement and prolong this litigation even in the midst of 
uncertain economic times. The last thing the American economy needs 
is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and 
stifles innovation.
    Phil Spilger, 10838 Evergreen Terrace SW,
    Lakewood, WA. 98498


From: Crlawren34@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This has dragged on long enough. The settlement agreed upon by 
the U.S. Gov't and the nine states involved is fair and settling 
this now is certainly in the best interest of the public. We do not 
need more prolonged litigation.
    Carol R. Lawrence


From: davidhenryart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support a prompt settlement to the Microsoft suit.
    David Henry


From: rfkilmer@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am writing this e-mail to let you know what I think of your 
attack on Microsoft.
    It seems to me that the DOJ misunderstands basic economics. In a 
free society the market will set prices and standards that they are 
willing to pay. And, if a company tries to charge to much for their 
product competition will bring them back to a rational price or in 
to bankruptcy. Competition is what moves us forward, without it 
their would be no need to advance because their would be no 
incentive. Competition is what weeds out the companies that don't 
have the insight to move forward. But this is not a bad thing. A

[[Page 25009]]

company is trying to get a piece of the market share. They do this 
by getting the best product for the best price to the customer. If a 
company cannot do this it is not their competitors fault. The market 
will always weed out those companies that don't make the most out of 
their resources. More govt controls are not what is needed. If you 
look into your history books you will see what that has done over 
and over again. It has and will crush progress every time. So I hope 
that America can become the first country to recognize it before it 
crushes us.
    In conclusion I would like to state that each individual knows 
or should know their economic priorities. Man is not born with the 
right to have a computer or a certain software system. Microsoft nor 
any other company owes them anything. If they like the product and 
have the economic means to purchase it they should, if not so be it. 
It is not up to the government to decide which company we put our 
money into.
    Thank you for your time
    Ray Kilmer


From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Reject the arguments of the neo-Fascists who are still 
attempting to crucify Microsoft--for doing what Capitalists are 
supposed to do: Use creativity to make our lives better. No one has 
ever forced anyone else to use Internet Explorer, or any other 
Microsoft product. All of Microsoft's ``competitors'' have been free 
to develop better, more attractive products; none of the 
``competitors'' should be allowed to use DoJ or U.S. Taxpayers' 
money to attack Microsoft.
    Tell each who wishes to use the U.S. Government as a club to 
``get a life.''
    Dan Warrensford
    40 Uranus Ave. Merritt Island FL 32953-3158 (321) 453-2217; 


From: Douglas Mayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    Here are my comments regarding the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust Case.
    1. The difference between Judge Jackson's proposed breakup and 
the proposed settlement is much too great. This gives the perception 
that a company can win if it can just outlast those pursuing it. The 
judiciary should be more stable than the executive, and not appear 
to flow with changes in administration.
    2. While Judge Jackson's behavior outside the court was stupid 
and a poor example to set as the court's representative, it should 
not have bearing on the finding of fact. However, if his behaviour 
is deemed too egregious, then start over from the beginning.
    3. Microsoft's behaviour at trial was outrageous and 
contemptible. Here is a specific instance which stands out: the 
infamous Internet Explorer video with James Allchin on the stand. 
This video was requested by the court and was willfully manipulated 
to show an untruth. The video was a mockery, and Allchin and others 
responsible should be held accountable. It should not be just 
``another product demo'' when presenting evidence in a U.S. court 
proceeding. Also, Gates statements about Microsoft keeping the 
companies overall financial records using paper and pencil were 
outrageous lies, considering his statements in ``The Road Ahead.''
    4. Microsoft's agenda is to make money. They have been 
successful in capturing market share in every segment of the 
software industry where they chosen to compete. It has been noted 
that Microsoft's cash reserves can be used to out spend any rival in 
product advertising and governmental lobbying.
    5. Microsoft's business agenda does not complement the nation's 
desire to secure its computer infrastructure. Microsoft's software 
vulnerabilities have led to exploitation and business interruption. 
Any settlement, short of the breakup, needs to address how Microsoft 
will work with the software community to address this serious 
problem. The ``code red'' virus has shown a few infected systems 
connected to a high speed network can do great damage.
    6. Microsoft's business agenda forces an ``upgrade path'' upon 
end users to ensure a continuing revenue stream. This is not 
necessary or rational, especially now that the PC has matured and 
works well enough for everyday business use. Software should be 
treated the same as a ``consumer durable good,'' much like a washing 
machine. Case in point: the comparable prices for Office XP and a 
Maytag washer. Microsoft's approach is to simply declare software 
obsolete, and unsupported after a specified date. This is not the 
best choice for business, as new versions always contain bugs and 
vulnerabilities. The maturity of Windows NT at Service Pack 6 
provides a stable base to build a business on, and appears to have 
advantages over later, more complex software such as Windows 2000 or 
Windows XP.
    Because Microsoft holds the copyright to their software, they 
can choose to market it how they please, or withdraw it from the 
market entirely. This limits consumer choice and is unfair.
    In the breakup scenario, I envisioned the ``children'' competing 
against one another to distiguish their product. A product offering 
the most stable and secure platform would have had appeal to 
business users, and would have been worth supporting through 
continuing fees for bug and security fixes. Without the breakup, 
this is an unlikely outcome as Microsoft sees there is much more 
profit in entirely new versions.
    7. Without a major remedy, Microsoft's egregious behaviour will 
continue. Consumers will have less choice and be forced to pay the 
monopolist's price. This is the continuing harm to consumers which 
was a finding of fact.
    Thank You,
    Douglas D. Mayne
    Salt Lake City, Utah


From: Malcolm C King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: the good it has done..
    Without Windows from Microsoft, I wouldn't have a computer, know 
what the Internet was nor have a lot of contact with the world of 
2002. I am stunned by what the DofJ thinks is wrong with Microsoft. 
As usual, no one in the real world (non-government) is offended, 
hurt nor angry with someone who has done a good thing for the 
majority of of Americans. Show me the millions of people that 
complained about ``M'' then go after them with all your might. Until 
then chase the millions of truly bad people there are in Americe, 
like the FBI office in Boston.


From: laverne(u)jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Tunney Act should be accepted as law, and the oppressive law 
suite against Microsoft ended. The court of appeals ruling seems to 
be fair to all parties. I do not think that further action against 
Microsoft is in the public's best interest.


From: Rrmontesi@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and fair and 
that it is time to put an end to all litigation regarding this 
matter. Please add my name to the list of those in favor of the 
settlement and make my opinion known to the District Court.
    God Bless America,
    Rosemary Montesi
    15 Westway Road
    Wayland, MA 01778


From: Alys Hinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My personal opinion is that Microsoft is the only software 
company that provided the public with the tools necessary to use the 
internet. Originally all of the software programs written for the 
computer; with the exception of Apple and the only programs that 
were written for Apple had to be used on a Apple computer, therefore 
if you owned anyother brand of computer Apple software was not 
compatible; were individual programs, the public had to be a 
computer wizard or guru to make them fit together, the only way 
business's could operate was to take individual reports from each 
software company and put them together by hand, none of the programs 
integrated. Microsoft's generosity gave the public the tools it 
needed to use the computer for all aspects of a business operation, 
from writing letters, to posting reminders on payments due, to 
business reports that allowed consolidated financial information 
available for day to day operations of their business.
    At the time Microsoft put together the consolidated computer 
program that a

[[Page 25010]]

layman could understand and use, the other computer companies 
offered only spread sheets, letter writing programs, etc. that an 
individual had to have the training to put that information together 
with another report before the information was usable.
    I believe Microsoft was a public servant, they refined the 
reports and programs so that the individual could use them in the 
manner in which the bookkeeping world had recorded it's information 
from the beginning. Microsoft allowed the small business man to gain 
information perternant to his business with the same speed and 
accuracy that big business had been able to do, allowing the middle 
man to operate more competitively.
    If the companies bringing the lawsuits against Microsoft had 
been as wise as Microsoft and offered their reports and information 
to the public that was usable by the public, before Microsoft they 
would have gained the same amount of public esteem and been as 
fortunate as Microsoft.
    I feel the suit against Microsoft should be settled, without 
added penalties, I feel Microsoft has given the people a tool that 
no one else could deliver, and with their help the economy has 
benefitted as well as Microsoft.
    Alys Hinkle, 290 Adams Street, Lander, WY 82520


From: Elaine Sipes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:20pm
    It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's back. I 
think that It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's 
back. I think that the states still trying to battle this issue are 
just trying to get a free hand out of cash. Thank God for Bill 
Gates, and the jobs that he has brought to the Pacific Northwest. It 
is time for the money grabbers in government to BACK OFF.
    Elaine Sipes


From: Kupfer, Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement. As research 
shows there is a significant gap along economic lines in 
availability of technology. 82% of the classrooms in richer 
communities are connected to the Internet while only 60%of the 
classroons in lower income classrooms have access. Funds are tight 
in Wisconsin due to our revenue control law which limits the amount 
a school district can raise to fund education.In addition we have a 
huge budget deficit. Education is one area that is being talked 
aboaut as a source of money to help balance the budget. Many schools 
need computers and Internet for their students. This would help them 
tremendously. Life is not a level playing field for many of our 
students. Their families cannot afford computers at home so school 
is the one place that they may have access to them and the help they 
bring. There is a huge world out there that many would never know 
without the Internet.
    Educators must be trained to use the technology so they can 
comfortably implement it in the classroom. It is the teacher in the 
classroom that most influences the student mastery and use of new 
knowledge. The component of teacher training is critical.
    I hope that the court will support the goals as set forth in the 
settlement. If we truly are to leave no child behind we must give 
them all the tools they need to be successful.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ellen Kupfer
    KEA, President


From: kirsten matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:24pm


From: Bill Brent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the United States Government and the Justice Department 
to refrain from punishing Microsoft any further. Their actions do 
not warrant prosecution by the Justice Department under the 
antitrust laws. They have not coerced anyone. They are being 
punished simply for being better than their competitors.
    Bill Brent
    Portland, Oregon


From: Gloria Gottiaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should now be settled once and for all.
    Gloria Gottiaux


From: GriffinF@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at the he 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is FAR TOO LENIENT!
    Among the settlements obvious flaws are:
    NO punishment for past behavior.
    NO attempt to make them lose the spoils of their crimes
    NOT leveling the competitive playing field enough Without 
stronger government intervention Microsoft will control the Instant 
Messaging and Media Player markets using same tactics they used in 
the Browser markets--UNFAIR BUNDLING.
    Michael A Fitzgerald
    Alexandria, VA


From: Ralph Weil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle this problem with Microsoft and let us get back to 
the business of growing America stronger.
    Ralph Weil


From: Jack C Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    I feel that the justice system is entirely wrong in allowing the 
legal action against Microsoft to continue. Not only has it taken 
money from taxpayers and shuffled it into the pockets of the 
attorneys but the public is suffering as a result of Microsoft not 
being able to develop new generation products.
    PLEASE, stop this insanity and let the many schools profit from 
the receipt of the free computer systems that Microsoft has agreed 
to provide!
    Jack C. Moore
    330 Hollipat Center Drive, #18
    Santa Barbara, California, 93111


From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs: As a U. S. citizen and as a consumer I am served 
extremely well by a free market. Your continued persecution of 
businesses and of Microsoft in particular is both economically and 
morally wrong. Without Mr. Gates brilliant creation: Microsoft, we 
all would be computing 20 years in the past. They compete by bring 
us ever more powerful computing tools and at ever less expensive 
prices. To viciously attack such a company--attacks begun and 
continued primarily out of petty jealousy, the inability to compete, 
and partisan politics--has cost the consumer dearly because 
Microsoft has been forced to waste incredible assets that could have 
been used to develop even more great products.
    Your unwarranted attacks on Microsoft have cost hundreds of 
billions of dollars in wealth as the result of their causing the 
Stock Market to lose a tremendous amount of equity--in short you 
have contributed to the enormous slide in the entire sector of 
businesses that includes Microsoft.
    Do the right thing and just drop it. Do our country and the 
economy a huge favor. Kindly desist.

[[Page 25011]]

    Drop the suit without prejudice. This has a precedence in the 
past with the wrongful IBM suit. Be bold.
    Dixon Teter, Ph.D.


From: CRichner@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:37pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I would like to write a letter saying Leave Microsoft alone, but 
please advise.
    Carol Richner
    A Fan of Bill Gates


From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement
    Robert J. Lantz


From: Joelle Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For nearly four years, this lawsuit has been dragging on. I 
believe that this settlement is absolutely a good thing and is in 
the public interest. It's tough on Microsoft, but reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. As a consumer, I overwhelmingly agree 
that settlement is good for me, the industry and the American 
economy. Let's not prolong this litigation in the midst of uncertain 
economic times. The last thing this country needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
Microsoft has never harmed consumers, all they've done is make great 
software and be a strong competitor. Microsoft's competitors are 
trying to waste our tax dollars by competing with Microsoft through 
the court systems, instead of having the courage to do it in the 
marketplace. I SUPPORT THIS SETTLEMENT! Let's move on, put an end to 
this case and spend my tax dollars on more worthy causes. Like 
ending terrorism!!! Thank you for giving me an opportunity to 
express my opinion.
    Joelle S. Thompson
    San Clemente, CA


From: Poppopbax@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Further litigation is wasteful--let all parties involved except 
the current Judge's decision.


From: belob@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the settlement made with Sicrosoft was fair & 
equitable. In our opinion, Microsoft has been instrumential in the 
advancement the use of technology which has led to our long bear 
market. Let things stand as agreed, and encourage the other 9 states 
to drop the matter.


From: Kitkhan@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Will you people please do whatever it takes to settle the 
Microsoft litigation so that technology can continue to march 
forward in the 21st century. Four years ago I paid $79.00 for 
Windows. Today I bought my 4th copy of Turbotax by Quicken--Total 
cost in 4 years = $160.00. I consider Windows a huge consumer 
advantage when I can perform multiple tasks vs. Turbotax, double the 
money, for a limited capability. I do not believe you should open a 
case on Quicken, but any idiot who says Microsoft has not been 
consumer friendly is simply misinformed.
    Walter Strain


From: Nolan Lameka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current settlement is fair for all parties. 
The dissident states seem to have political motives behind them 
rather than economic.
    Nolan A Lameka


From: jimturke@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it for drying-out-loud. The only reason the few want to 
drag it on is the ``lawyers'' want more case money--they don't give 
a hoot otherwise.


From: AlSirkin@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:53pm
Subject: microsoft
    I wish the government would just get this thing over with so 
Microsoft can keep delivering new products to us computer users and 
my shares will increase again. Fight terrorists not our best 
    Alan Sirkin


From: d-dmiller(a)shaw.ca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:58pm
Subject: Justice
    I wish to request that the court consider the liberty that has 
been provided by the US Constitution and reach the only rational 
conclusion in the Microsoft judgement which is to accept that 
company's complete innocence. At this critical juncture of history, 
America must uphold liberty even more vigilantly. To judge against 
Microsoft would send another chill through business and 
entrepreneurial spirit in America. Do not eat the goose that lays 
the golden egg.
    Dennis R. Miller
    3938 Elsey Lane
    Victoria BC V8X 5K1


From: MIPRESS@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a writer and constant user of computer programs, I am ever so 
grateful to innovative companies such as Microsoft that have made my 
life so much easier, to say nothing of how much it has improved my 
work and that of millions of others. I am appalled at the attempt to 
tear down a company that has given the whole world so many better 
ways to operate and to communicate. Give me a break! If you have to 
spend your time in litigation of American companies, why not pick on 
the phony sleezeball outfits that target innocent citizens with get-
rich and other bogus schemes. I applaud Microsoft and the rest of 
the world does too, or at least the rest of the ``thinking'' and 
hard-working world.
    Judith Welsh,
    Independent Journalist,
    Miami, Florida


From: BALAR53@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is past time that the DOJ acted in the BEST interest of the 
USA and its citizens. The settlement signed off on is more than 
enough punishment for a case never should have been brought. No 
other country in this world is destructive to the inventions and 
intellectual property successes of its corporations. But for the 
grace of God, the USA has survived the misjudgments (like this one) 
by its government--that goes for antitrust as well as how we the 
people have been protected from enemies who would (and did) kill us. 
Let us not kill our own brilliant ideas anymore.


From: BRTSTAR1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:03pm
Subject: settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel Microsoft should not be penalized for creating a great 
network that has benefited so many.
    Many of his competitors are greedy and want his fame. Let Bill 
Gates and Microsoft go and let then invent many wonderful things to 
make life easy and safe.
    Valerie Rogers,
    Louisville, KY


From: McCarthy, Kathleen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I live in Utah. I was told you were looking for opinions as Utah 
wants to pursue harsher punishment against Microsoft. My opinion is 
that my state should not try to pursue harsher punishment. I think 
they should just go with the current settlement and be done with it.

[[Page 25012]]

Spend my tax dollars on pursuing things like violent crimes.
    Kathleen McCarthy
    Citrix/Client Support
    Admin Computing Services
    University of Utah


From: marv matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:06pm


From: John Robert Hooten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    January 2, 2002
    Please register my support for the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft litigation. While I support the proposed settlement, I 
thought the entire litigation was absurd and a situation where 
certain competitors were successful in convincing the government 
that the government should try to even the playing field when the 
competition could not win by competition. The litigation should not 
have been commenced in the first place.
    Like so many other so-called ``senior citizens'' (those over 65, 
I guess) before the Microsoft Windows program came out, I had no 
idea how to operate a computer or to even turn it on. After Windows 
came out, I found that operating a computer was easy for one who 
knows virtually nothing about computers.
    Because of the ease of operating the computer brought about by 
Microsoft for the general public, the company should be given credit 
for helping the public rather than attempting to punish Microsoft 
for becoming successful and bringing the world of computers to 
people like me.
    Do not let anyone convince you that Microsoft has done anything 
bad for the public because that is not true. The opposite is true. 
Now that the government and most states have agreed to settle the 
litigation, the settlement should be approved. The government should 
go about performing governmental functions and the competition 
should go about trying to make a better product for the public.
    John Robert Hooten
    P.O. Box 452
    Oriental, N.C. 28571
    Tel # 252-249-2015
    cell # 252-526-1111


From: tomld@msn.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The damage that is being done to the US technical world postion 
by the the lawsuit is terrible. Only the lawyers are making out. I 
can't believe the greed of the states and companies for not going 
along with the settlement.
    Microsoft has done more for this country than any other 
technical company in the last 15 years. They should be rewarded for 
their contributions to the country and world. Please stop and 
consider how Microsoft software know -how has impacted every area of 
our lives. Where would we be today in the fields of medicine, 
engineering, economics, military and many others without the 
Microsoft. Also, please don't forget the the contributions Mr. Gates 
has made through his trust funds to various charitable 
    Tom Dougherty


From: Lee Moulds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am disappointed to learn that the Microsoft Settlement may not 
go through. It has taken four years to reach this settlement, which 
appears to be fair to all parties concerned. Please do whatever is 
necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion so that ``business'' 
can move forward.
    Thank you,
    Mildred Lee Moulds,
    Phoenix, MD


From: james newcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it Now!! Enough already. Too much even!! Let's got on 
with free enterprise, the American way,
    Etc. Quit wasting Tax dollars.. Thanks. FED UP


From: dave rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is Microsoft a monopoly? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. Give businessmen a break. It 
is the only way our country will progress. Why don't you attack the 
trial lawyers with the vigor you attack business?
    David rose
    5 ellen rd
    Marblehead, MA


From: J Tanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:13pm
Subject: Rejection of Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Attorney General, Members of the Department of 
Justice: I, my family, and many of my friends and business 
associates are extremely concerned over the lack of fortitude in the 
offer drawn between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
Corporation. The proposed settlement does NOTHING to make repair to 
the damages done through years and years of unrestrained illegal 
behavior by Microsoft and its executives and will do NOTHING to 
level the playing field and bring competition to what was once a 
thriving industry. Even now as civil suits are being settled, 
Microsoft is walking away unscathed and in some instances planting 
the seeds for future market domination. Somehow the mistakes of the 
1995 consent decree are dangerously close to being repeated. Please 
reconsider this settlement and reconstruct it to offer a REAL remedy 
to the Microsoft situation. Until a remedy which TRULY protects 
consumers and encourages competition can be reached keep, please the 
case alive and in pursuit of a suitable and practical remedy.
    James Tanne
    190 N 980 E
    Lindon, UT


From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:16pm
Subject: One additional Comment
    As I've been reading through the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
I have yet to see (what I feel) is one of the most troubling issues. 
I refer to the fact that many web sites use Microsoft specific 
technology that allow only Windows users to access features on their 
    On Yahoo, there are various stories that are available on Yahoos 
ON24 service. If you're an Apple (or Linux) user, you're told that 
only the windows operating system is supported. The other day I was 
at an auto shopping site and clicked a button to price a car. Once 
again I received a message saying ``Your operating system is not 
supported by this site'' If this type of behavior represented 
isolated instances, it wouldn't bother me, but it is becoming more 
prevalent on the internet. As an Apple user, I find this very 
annoying as well as highly discriminatory.
    Basically I'm being told to get rid of my Apple and buy a PC if 
I want access. The whole concept of the internet is freedom. 
Microsoft has taken that from many of us I think any settlement 
should address these issues, by forcing companies (Microsoft 
specifically) to produce software that allows all internet users 
(regardless of operating system) to be granted the same access to 
all websites. I further believe that large corporations such as 
Yahoo, AOL and others be prevented from offering Widows only 
services. Only when specific services are available to all, should 
they be allowed to offer them.
    I feel this will go a long way to putting a dent in Microsoft's 
monopolistic behavior
    Thank you for your time

[[Page 25013]]

    Anthony J Palumbo
    80 Ridge Road
    Hackettstown, NJ


From: Bob Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:14pm
    I think that the issue with Microsoft has gone on for long 
enough and that the government needs to bring the matter to an end.
    I have been working in the technology arena for the past 15 
years. There are many instances where innovative companies such as 
Microsoft have appeared to stiffle competition. In fact, the nature 
and functionality of the product has been the determining factor for 
success or failure of companies.
    I would urge that the United States Government highly suggest to 
all states to find a settlement with Microsoft so that no more money 
is wasted.
    Robert C. Harper


From: Greg Schroer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Dear Department of Justice:
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I request that the DOJ settle the Microsoft lawsuit as it is now 
proposed. Contrary to what others may say, Micorsoft has done 
wonders for my ability, and many others, to create and maintain a 
small business.
    Without their quality, integrated software I would not be able 
to manage my business, and it also would have created problems in 
most other businesses. Microsoft products are excellent and that 
company should not be critized for doing a good job at innovating 
effective software that benefits most of the world. Please settle 
this case as soon as possible.
    Greg Schroer
    4308 106th PL NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033
    425/828-3858 (Fax:425/828-3543)


From: Cleopateras@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think enough time and money has been spent on this suit. As a 
taxpayer I have certainly not received any benefit from it. On the 
other hand, as a consumer, Microsoft has been of great benefit to me 
and to my elderly Dad. After my Mother died he was pretty lost, but 
having a computer and being able to access so easily so many 
things--he shops on line--and can e-mail family and friends out of 
state, has made a big difference in his life and in his children' 
and grandchildren's. The settlement has been reached and I think 
that the various states attorneys general still whining, like the 
one from Massachusetts, are just making political hay.Microsoft has 
been a boon to a great many people. If we are going to start chasing 
successfull businesses because they have deep pockets, then I think 
the role of the government is being perverted. Let the settlement 
stand. Enough already.
    Diane Parry


From: Kittyrobinfarms@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has come to my attention that the Federal Gov. is still 
pursuing the Microsoft case.
    As a consumer, I have no particular interest in the Microsoft 
Company, but I do use their products. I have been around long enough 
to watch what happened to the telephone company and disaster that 
continue to spawn out of that mess that us consumers have to pay for 
in time, money, and inconvenience.
    The government has an agreement with Microsoft, why do you need 
to continue to look for ways to interfere with their quality 
products and service to us consumers?
    In other words, please stop your hounding of this company and 
divert your efforts and money to more important dangers such as the 
safety of our country.
    Thank you,
    Elizabeth Morris


From: Gary Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. I vote to settle this case, and move on.
    Netscape/AOL, Sun, Real Player are poor players. I have and use 
them all. How about getting these players to improve their products.
    So far, they're almost loosers.
    Gary Anderson,


From: Valerie R. Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    It is time to settle and let Microsoft and the American economy 
get back to business... the Business of Innovation, which makes us a 
great Nation!
    I held stock in Microsoft and lost thousands of dollars, just 
like many others in this country. I no longer have the stock, so 
your decision will not directly affect me, but it affects all of us 
indirectly when the economy is hurt by this special interest 
    All companies do business the way Microsoft does. They try to be 
the best and beat there competitors full stop!! In this case several 
of Microsoft's competitors had friends in our government.
    This lawsuit was not for the Consumer!!! Don't make the mistake 
of thinking that the American public see our government as 
protecting them from the big bad Microsoft...they don't!!!!!!!!! 
They see powerful government officials using their influence to help 
their powerful friends (competitors of Microsoft)!!! They see you 
hurting their stock portfolio and the economy as a 
whole!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! 
    Valerie R. Hummel MCSE
    1430 Hwy 87 East
    Billings, MT 59101


From: KathRips@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January  3, 2002
To: The Department of Justice
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft case now. Don't let the 
aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors 
derail the settlement reached by the federal government and nine 
states. The settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. I overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is in 
the best interests of consumers, the industry and the American 
    Kathleen Rips
    2049 Milan Ave.
    South Pasadena, CA 91030


From: Lee Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement between the DoJ and Microsoft 
for the following reasons.
    (1) There is no punishment within it. Microsoft was found 
guilty, and that finding should have some consequences. Donating 
software and a bit of hardware costs them nothing.
    (2) It encourages them to strongly enter one of the few markets 
in which they still have competition--the education market--and does 
so in a manner that allows their competitors little voice. Indeed, 
this strategy of giving away software to establish market dominance 
is one they've used several times before. It was one of the bases of 
the browser lawsuit.
    (3) There is little in the agreement to keep Microsoft from 
using its ill-gotten monopolies to stifle future competition. Tthe 
Windows Media Player versus Real Player and QuickTime competition is 
already showing Microsoft to be up to its old tricks in the most 
recent releases of Windows.
    Lee Larson,
    Department of Mathematics,
    University of Louisville
    Phone: 502-852-6826 Fax: 502-852-7132 E-mail: 


From: Bill Weirich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I am still trying to determine how I was 
``harmed'' by Microsoft. Their products have helped improve the 
efficiency of Americans and, as a taxpayer, I have resented the 
government's efforts to

[[Page 25014]]

prosecute one of the most successful and innovative corporations in 
the US! I therefore feel that the proposed settlement is more than 
fair and that the US government should find better witches to hunt.
    Bill Weirich
    Matrix Capital Markets Group, Inc.
    11 South 12th Street
    Richmond, VA 23219
    Phone: (804) 780-0060
    Fax: (804) 780-0158
    E-mail: bweirich@matrixcapitalmarkets.com
    Web Site: www.matrixcapitalmarkets.com


From: BOLENDERJ@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settement
    Let's get back to innovating and producing by accepting the 
compromise settlement agreement. Lawyers are the only ones to gain 
by continuing to yak and yak.
    James H. Bolender


From: Jim Furlong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Can't we get on with things and settle. It's obvious to me that 
the States holding out for a bigger settlement all have business 
interests in seeing Microsoft hurt further (ie Utah,Oracle). Tell 
those states I wouldn't buy any of their winey products, just 
because they can't compete without a tilted playing field.
    Please urge them to settle or you will throw them back to ground 
zero and dismiss all gains agreed to by the other states. 


From: Steve Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I beleive that the current Microsoft settlement is fair. Further 
action by the Federal Government as well as the 9 states who 
continue to fight Micrsoft only serves to weaken an industry already 
battered by foriegn competitors using unfair trade practices, an 
economic recession, major downturn in capital spending as well as 
other factors. Let's not turn the US's future competitive advantage 
in software and all- into todays electronics market dominated by 
Asian COUNTRIES and manufacturers. I'm the owner of a small business 
and the less Government interaction / intervention- in business ( 
Federal-State-Local ) the better off EVERYONE is.
    Steve Lussier
    Technico Inc
    Warren Ohio


From: Alfred Petermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's about time that this matter is put to rest. For almost four 
years, DOJ has danced with industry advocates that are trying to 
succeed in the court of law because they fail daily in the 
enterprise markets. The people vote with their wallets and they 
support Microsoft products. Just imagine if the government were to 
improve its products annually, increase its service and features and 
then charge less every year for it. Will never happen, that's why 
government proponents are so desperate to derail Microsoft. How much 
damage can you guy do to our economy?
    Alfred R. Petermann


From: ronnie harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft settlement should be labeled ``microsoft witch 
hunt''... microsoft has done nothing out of the ordinary for modern 
business practices...if microsoft is to be the goat for modern 
business procedures then every other big and middle sized businesses 
should be closed down...if this is what the witch hunters really 
want-then they are a bigger danger to our country than all the 
``outsider''...stop picking on the engines of our economy and let 
them compete with each other without government intervention...
    thank you.


From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:39pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone
    MIAMI OK. 74354


From: AlexZakson@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Computing technology changes very rapidly. (I know I have been 
in computiong for 40 years.) Dominant companies that do not keep up, 
or drop the ball find themselves in oblivion. You cannot blame the 
demise of DEC, Digital, Univac, NCR, and others on Microsoft.
    Please Let Microsoft innovate. It's very important to computing. 
If others cannot keep up, penalizing Microsoft will not give them an 
advantage; it'll just hold the whole industry back.
    Alex Zakson


From: Foxisland3@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:41pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in total favor of the government settling its claim against 
Microsoft. In my opinion, I feel it was a bogus, costly, 
unjustifiable law suit. It would behoove the government to spend 
taxpayer money on more critical issues than going against a 
successful company that has done nothing but bring prosperity to 
this country. Someone in Washington, DC got greedy and a little 
sidetracked with special interest groups in its pursuit of 
Microsoft. It's time the Democrats worked for the good of this 
country and got off the political merry-go-round it so intently 
works to nourish.
    Cheri Landers


From: David Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand the need to finish this case and move on, but 
should we do it without resolving anything? How many times does a 
company need to be taken to court for the same type of actions and 
each time be told to stop doing it? You're like the parents who say 
``No'', but never back it up. No one learns from someone telling 
them, ``Stop, and if you do it again, we're going to tell you to 
stop again!''
    With Windows XP and the .NET strategy, it should be fairly 
obvious that Microsoft does NOT intend to stop anti-competitive 
practices. The .NET strategy alone is a complete step toward total 
domination on the internet. I can't imagine a world where Microsoft 
rules the net. This company can't even protect it's on servers from 
hackers and we're going to let them control commerce on the net?
    If Microsoft had climbed into the position of being the dominant 
one because of better products or better business practices, that 
would be one thing. But, from the start, this company relied on lies 
and bullying to get where it is, and we just tell them to quit. Over 
and over again. As the world becomes even more dependent on the 
computer, we are only allowing Microsoft to completely monopolize 
the situation.
    When you control 90% of the world's computers, you control 
competition. I don't care how competitive the tech world is, you 
can't compete with them.
    When Microsoft integrates products into their operating systems, 
only Microsoft wins. Most users, and this is their own fault, see 
that program there and use it because it's already there for them. 
Why go out and get competitors products if you can get it free from 
Microsoft, even if it is an inferior product? It's like NBC trying 
to run ads on CBS, it's not going to happen and Microsoft knows 
    The problem also is that Microsoft knows that the government 
will not do anything about it. Why stop what got you to the top, if 
there are no consequences?
    Thanks for your time,
    David Stanley


From: Joanne Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:42pm

[[Page 25015]]

Subject: microsoft settlement
    We believe the settlement is fair and timely. With the present 
economic situation in the US, it is time to settle and get on with 
other issues that are more important right now, like homeland 
security and national defense against terrorism.
    Joanne & Jay Murray


From: dan dengel,m.d.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The lawsuit against Microsoft should be settled via the Tunney 
Act. Let's get on with our economy. There's been enough damaging 
litigation which is NOT helping the consumer!
    Daniel M. Dengel M.D.


From: rdour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft suit should be settled as quickly as possible with 
little damage to the Company. Microsoft has made a major 
contribution to American industry's productivity, and provided the 
home user with valuable tools.
    The suit should never have been brought against the company.
    Robert Dourian
    9215 Shoshone Ave.
    Northridge, Ca., 91325


From: Fergers@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern. As a strong supporter of Microsoft and 
the free Market system of the United States of America,I can't 
believe that in the year 2002, we still have 9 states still going 
after Microsoft. Don't these Attorney Generals have any thing else 
to do with there time. Maybe they should try getting a life instead 
of making a career going after Microsoft. If I were the governor of 
the 9 Attorney Generals I would fire all of them for wasting the 
peoples money. Maybe they should do there Job and go after real 
criminals instead of protecting Microsofts competitors like Sun 
Microsystems and that idiot larry elison from oricle who everytime 
you see him on TV bashes microsoft. I would love to know maybe 5 or 
10 years from now when these Attorneys leave office who the ex 
Attorney Generals work for or represent in there practices.Would it 
be a surprise or not to see them hook with one of these 
Companies.Only time will tell.Maybe someone should watch them as 
hard as Microsofts Competitors watch Microsoft when they leave 
    John Redgrave


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom It may Concern
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They have done wonders for our 
country. Do not stifle their new innovative spirit! How can this be 
a monopoly, when Bill Gates and company have done everything from 
square one. The did not buy out or take over any other company; as 
the oil companies are doing. Please let them alone and let them go 
about their business of making our lives easier.
    Sue Hamilton


From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:47pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone


From: Gary Herbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:50pm
    Further litigation by either the Justice Dept. or by the states 
is like a dog chasing cars. There is nothing to be gained! The 
settlement is fair to all parties. The competitors have had their 
day in court and now it's time to move on.
    The consumer is having it's say by continuing to purchase 
Microsoft products.
    Gary Herbert


From: Rossulus@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Enough hassle has been given to Microsoft. The ruling was fair 
and for all concerned this legal nonsense should cease.
    Jane Ross


From: Mumsy37@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:53pm
    Department of Justice:
    Please let Microsoft get on with their company business. Enough 
is enough. I feel all of us need to get on with the business of this 
country. I am hopeful that Microsoft and others may develop systems 
to help us ferret out the evil people who are trying to kill us and 
destroy our country. They can't do this while fighting for their 
very being, let alone the cost of lawsuits. I hope you will do 
whatever is necessary to encourage the states still trying for more 
punishment to cease actions.
    God Bless America. She needs everyone to join the fight and not 
be fighting each other. Thank you.
    Janet Munson
    Corpus Christi, TX


From: Joseph McCallion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


From: triallawyer@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I support the Microsoft Settlement with the Federal Government. 
This costly litigation should end with this fair settlement. The 
cost is to the America People as well as to Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jonathan M. Murdoch-Kitt
    3217 Chamberlayne Avenue
    Richmond, Virginia 23227-4806


From: coolcraw@att.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:57pm
Subject: DOJ:
    Why aren't these State attorney generals at the airport?? These 
are the real criminals. If you want to take on a monopoly, take on 
    C> Kapikian


From: Jeane Harkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this now the way it has been proposed. The current 
proposal seems very fair to all parties concerned. At this time we 
should be concerned with other problems on the home front not this 
    Thank you for your consideration.


From: Dennyno1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement

[[Page 25016]]

    Free enterprise was attacked by the Clinton Democrats when they 
filed charges against Microsoft. A company that has done more to 
encourage the economy than any other organization in our lifetime.
    If there had to be a settlement, giving to schools, equipment 
needed to advance the knowledge of young folks, is terrific. Mr. 
Gates is truly a giver and this just adds to his consideration of 
    Denny DeVries


From: DearKata@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:01pm
    I'm totally IN FAVOR of Mr. Gates & Microsoft & its innovative & 
creative products to help better our lives. LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE to 
use its time to continue to do this.
    Please do not waste their time in court in the name of 
``justice'' ... it is NOT justice to stifle the minds of brilliant 
people working for a brilliant company producing goods which we all 
buy to enhance our endeavors. This IS a free Country ... so let them 
be free to continue to innovate.
    Kata Patton


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:03pm
Subject: microsofy
    To whom it may concern, We feel that the current settlement 
between Microsoft and DOJ is fair. We hope that this would end the 
dispute and would give a chance for our high tech economy to recover 
and lead the world the way it was before litigation.
    mark jadeed


From: Janet Tashima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:05pm
Subject: msft settlement
    I live in silicon valley. I feel a lot of the companies who have 
made this action against microsoft have just had inferior technology 
and they want to use their political position to have the government 
help them be competitive. I do not think that is the role of 
government. The companies that have the best tech will win, and that 
is the best thing for customers in the long run.
    I also own a lot of other tech stocks and I feel that the 
justice dept action against Microsoft started the downturn in the 
tech econ and the stock market. All one has to do is view the charts 
of the tech stocks. I think companies such as Oracle and Sun are so 
blinded by their jealousy of Gates, that they are willing to let the 
whole tech econ suffer. They seem to not even care if their own 
companies have taken a major hit. I guess why should they care, they 
are not just a worker in their company and they are billionaires 
even if the stock takes a tumble. They do not want to acknowledge 
that a multi million dollar action against one tech company is 
harmful to tech in general. It is time to move on and get rid of the 
excesses of the past administration.
    Janet Tashima 408-243-8424


From: LTP3801@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen grateful for innovative and useful products 
bringing tax revenue at home and abroad, I hope the settlement 
tentatively arrived at regarding Microsoft will be upheld and the 
matter finally brought to conclusion so that the time, energy and 
resources of Microsoft AND the government can b e more usefully 
    There are competitive forces working in the economy and the time 
has come for them to be the determinants.
    Very truly yours,
    Lydia T. Pfund
    Highland Beach, Florida


From: NMorgan296@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:05pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I urge that steps be taken to ensure that the negotiated 
settlement with Microsoft proceed to conclusion without undue delay. 
The settlement is the best resolution of the litigation and any 
steps to derail the settlement should be strongly resisted.
    Neil and Debbie Morgan


From: Carole Joy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:38pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    I am 100% in favor of microsoft being able to make and keep 
control of their own products. I think Microsoft invented it and 
should make the profit for it and be able to retain it as their own 
product. .... Other companies can make their own products.
    Carole Joy


From: geno284@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    ROCHESTER, NY 14617


From: Heidar E-Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:58pm
Subject: microsoft litigation
    Dear Sirs.
    I would like to register my opinion and frustration that there 
continues to be delays in reaching a full settlement in the 
Microsoft case. It is long overdue that we put this matter behind us 
and move on.
    Continuous harassment of this company only serves to impede its 
progress in giving us better technology and this acts as a drag on 
the U.S. economy. So, settle and move on. We have better things to 
do than this.
    Helgi Heidar


From: Keith Steensma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    I am a shareholder of both Microsoft and Compaq stock. And as 
such, I should be very interested in seeing Microsoft operate (and 
make profits) un-hindered by any barriers. The fact is the what is 
good for Microsoft (and the other companies, like Compaq, that rely 
on Microsoft) is good for the nation.
    The is definitely not how I feel. I was a small businessman 
during the late 1980's and all of 1990's and felt the impact that 
(the infamous) WalMart had in our community. What was good for 
WalMart was not good for me. Eventually, we closed the store because 
we couldn't compete. My business was impacted by WalMart, but it was 
also impacted by the actions of Microsoft. Our business had 
supported Atari, Netscape, and IBM, and depended on the 
`alternatives' that these companies offered. Needless to say, as 
these companies failed in there quest to be an alternative, our 
business suffered. I believe that Microsoft has acted improperly. I 
have read all of the documents (concerning this case) that have bee 
released by the courts. I was stunned to read some of the actions 
that were taken (by Microsoft) to `make sure' a certain company or 
product failed. I believe that Microsoft needs to change the way 
they do business. And I don't believe that this will happen unless 
the company is severely sanctioned and regulated. I believe that the 
agreement that the government has reached with Microsoft is a joke 
and is an insult to my belief in my government. Please look at all 
the aspects of this case and arrive at a more `real' settlement of 
this case.
    Keith Steensma
    Jacksonville, Arkansas


From: warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. I am writing to express my displeasure at the proposed 
``settlement'' between the Dept of Justice and Microsoft. Not only 
does it NOT halt the illegal, anti-trust activities of Microsoft, 
but in some cases actually promotes Microsoft (ie. allowing them to 
flood the schools with free software).
    Hopefully the unfairness of this proposed settlement will be 
recognized and dealt with accordingly by the courts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view.
    --Warren Friedman
    Fairfax, California


From: miburt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25017]]

    Get off of Microsoft's back. You have already spent too much of 
the taxpayer's money in trying a bum cause. Quit wasting our money 
and let Microsoft continue to give us better products for less money 
as they have in the past. Find some more important things to do.
    Doris & Burt Shearer


From: Michael E. Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and that 
continued litigation serves no purpose except to increase legal fees 
and burnish the reputation of political office seekers.
    Indeed, although Microsoft may effectively have a monopoly on 
certain software products, they have gained this by producing 
quality products at a reasonable price to the great benefit of the 
general public. I have made it a point to use the software of many 
competing companies before migrating to Microsoft products, and 
unfortunately found them to be lacking in effectiveness.
    Microsoft has succeeded largely because they built a better 
mouse. I hate to see competition stifled, but I also hate to see the 
government stifle innovation.
    Where were all the DoJ lawyers when Kenneth Lay and his team 
were taking the public on a very expensive ride with Enron? Maybe if 
Bill Gates and company had been as effusive with political donations 
as they have been with charitable donations, Microsoft might not 
have had to face this purgatory.
    Mike Warren
    Gainesville, FL


From: Joanie Garborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between 
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that 
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long 
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
    Joanie Garborg


From: Park31825@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe the settlement against Micrsoft recently is 
just and fair. Let all accept it and get on with our lives
    2417 Vining St.
    Bellingham, Wa.98226


From: Eric Lanser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The anti-trust laws are of dubious constitutionality. They are 
more a-kin to a ``government of men'' than to the stated American 
ideal of a ``government of laws.'' They do NOT treat all equally 
before the law (i.e. the successful). Finally, the laws violate the 
rights of the successful in favor of any mistaken and short-sighted 
voice of the ``consumer interest.'' The anti-trust laws' dubious 
constitutionality is one of the primary reasons why they ultimately 
hurt consumers more than help them.
    Ignoring the question of the rights to dispose of one's property 
in any way one wishes, another issue is at stake as well. The very 
existence of Microsoft and would-be corporations like it is greatly 
hindered by the presence and enforcement of the anti-trust laws. If 
Bill Gates had not ever existed, the world today would literally be 
a very different place. I'm not speaking of any sort of ``It's a 
Wonderful Life'' scenario here, but one of even greater importance. 
One where a single man has affected billions of people in a greatly 
positive way. Bill Gates provided the world with a vastly more 
efficient and effective platform than any other in existence. 
American people, and American corporations responded by purchasing 
it in vast numbers. Without Windows, the computer age would have, at 
best, been delayed a number of years. Although alternative platforms 
do exist, nearly every major company in the United States (and the 
world) uses some version of Windows on its machines. An office-place 
without computers would seem a strange site today, but it would be 
much more common without Bill Gates' actions.
    Among the many successes of Windows is its integration of 
multiple applications smoothly and effectively. Incorporating 
Internet Explorer into windows served as a terrific convenience to 
purchasers of windows. It saved consumers not only the money to buy 
the program but also the shipping time of some alternative browser 
to their house, school, or business.
    The entire reason Microsoft is being victimized by the anti-
trust laws is because its business practices have been so 
successful, it products so vital, and its impact on America and the 
world so great. Microsoft should be held up as a model to emulate 
and Bill Gates as a hero and innovator of our times. By punishing 
the successful precisely because they have done what they have done 
in the most efficient, innovative, and profitable ways is beyond 
impractical; it is immoral.
    The direct implications of penalizing Microsoft would mean one 
of a number of things (or some combination thereof): a. Layoffs at 
Microsoft; b. Higher prices for Windows and other software; c. Fewer 
innovations in the software field. Any voice of the ``public'' or 
``consumer interest'' should not overlook the simple fact that a 
hefty fine on Microsoft will NOT come out of Bill
    Gates pockets (nor should it), but ultimately out of the pockets 
of the ``public'' or consumers themselves. Even if no fine is 
involved, losses in profit (not to mention the costs to Microsoft 
for defending itself at trial) will have the same affects on prices/
labor/innovation. In the long run, if Microsoft is penalized for its 
successful business practices, it will forever be an example to 
future would-be innovators. Without Bill Gates and his would-be 
equals, no stimulus package in the world would be able to propel 
this economy or any other at the rate it has been growing since the 
early nineties. Without innovation in the computer field, or any 
other, the standard of living of the United States would stagnate, 
productivity would cease to rise, and every human being in the 
United States would suffer the consequences--from the highest paid 
CEO (who would see his portfolio crumble and his own business 
stagnate) to every factory worker (who would cease to have increases 
in pay do to rises in productivity).
    Most of all the consumers would suffer. They would have far 
fewer quality products coming to market. The new products that 
would, against all odds, come to market would be at higher prices 
and/or of lower quality than they would otherwise be. Once again, I 
urge any speaker for ``the public good'' or the ``consumer 
interest'' to take a look at the ultimate (and even immediate) 
consequences of penalizing the successful for doing exactly what 
they do best, providing the public with innovations, improvements, 
and quality products at low prices. The whole spirit of the United 
States was that of a nation in which great minds and average minds 
alike could live and think as they pleased--a symbol to the world of 
what the human mind and human self-interest could do for man and the 
world if he were left free.


From: keithgarborg@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between 
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that 
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long 
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
    Keith Garborg


From: Patricia Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that the case against Microsoft has gone on long 
enough and that it would in the nation's best interest to finalize 
the settlement. With everything that is going on in the world, why 
don't we free up the bright minds of our country to focus on 
improving all of our lives as I feel Microsoft has done and 
continues to do. If the competitors of Microsoft spent as much time 
and money on their ideas and products as they are spending on this 
long, drawn-out litigation, they would probably be more successful 
in the business world.
    Pat Andrews
    145 Scottsdale Square
    Winter Park, FL 32792
    Phone: 407-718-5184
    Fax: 407-644-9951
    E-mail: patandrews38@hotmail.com


From: Judy Tallman
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25018]]

Date: 1/3/02  6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks,
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is fair and just 
to all parties. I highly recommend that the settlement be approved. 
It is time for us to allow Microsoft get back to the business of 
developing software. The first judge could not have been computer 
literate or he would not have made some of the comments if what was 
printed was indeed what was stated. For anyone like myself who has 
been using computers since mainframes and 300 baud modems were state 
of the art, many of the charges against MS are totally ridiculous.
    I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Gates both in his business 
practices and in his personal life. I checked the charities that MS 
support and they are very thoughtful and oriented towards helping 
children and schools especially. To me, this whole fuss seems to be 
all about lawyers trying to get more MS money for themselves.
    Let's please let MS supply the kids with computers and get on 
with business.
    Happy Trails,
    Judy Tallman
    Dancing Horses, Inc.


From: Bryan DeBois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: Please allow Microsoft to settle with 
the United States!! This judicial farce has gone on long enough, and 
wasted far too much of the tax-payers' money. It is high time that 
the Department of Justice give a vote of confidence for the 
consumers and their ability to think for themselves, instead of 
allowing large Microsoft competitors to whisper in justices' ears. 
We are on the brink of a new year, under a new administration, it is 
time to let it go.
    Bryan DeBois
    Senior, Computer Science Major
    The University of Akron


From: Melvin Henderson-Rubio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the record, I need to state that I am a long-term Microsoft 
employee (over 15 yrs). Obviously, I have been aware of the current 
case filed by the DOJ and number of states as well as the settlement 
reached with DOJ and several states.
    It goes without saying that I have never fully grasped the 
justification for the case nor similar cases filed earlier along the 
same grounds. I am well aware that our competitors have been and 
will continue to use the legal system and public option to try and 
accomplish what they have failed to in the marketplace, develop and 
market some of the best software in the industry.
    As taxpayer, not only in my residing state of Washington (which 
I'm glad to see our Attorney General opted not to join in on the 
case) and as a US tax payer, I fail to understand what the DOJ and 
states see as the benefit to consumers and the use tax dollars to 
fund such investigation, beyond a reasonable review. What did and 
what do these states really think they are doing to assist their 
citizens? As a consumer, if I do not want Microsoft products pre-
installed on my system, I can remove them and replace with other 
products. Similar to what happens when I purchase a car. If I do not 
like the radio I pay purchase one after market and the same goes for 
wheels or tries. There is a huge after-market for these items. 
Similarly there are options in the high-tech industry, but the vast 
majority of consumers are okay with an ``industry standard.'' 
Currently it's Microsoft, in the early days of the pc, it was Apple, 
and someday it will be someone else. If you look at history, first 
it was the Chinese, Greeks and Egyptians, then French, Dutch, 
Spanish and British who ruled the world. In recent times, the 
Russians and now the US. History takes care of things.
    As a consumer and watching the growth of the pc industry for 
more than 15 years, Microsoft along with industry partners such as: 
Intel and major pc companies (including Apple to some degree) have 
done more to stimulate the pc industry and economy overall than any 
other sequence of innovations in US or for that matter, contemporary 
world economy. I equate that Microsoft (along with Intel) has done 
for the pc and high tech industry what McDonald's has and continues 
to do for the ``fast-food'' industry; Disney for the concept of 
amusements and family entrainment; Starbucks for the coffee industry 
and CNN for 24 Hour News.
    Yes, Microsoft has been extremely aggressive when it comes to 
getting it's product into the marketplace, but not any more than a 
sports franchise looking to win the Super Bowl or NBA Title. Just 
image had the DOJ and states outside of Illinois and/or Texas and 
California opted to oppose the Bulls, Cowboys or 49'ers from winning 
as many world titles as they have.
    It should not be the role of the government to pick and choose 
winners and losers, nor overly support the lobbying efforts by 
competitors to try and level the marketplace. Over the years 
Microsoft has seen numerous opportunities and markets to pursue and 
set clear-cut objectives to enter those markets. I do not recall 
Microsoft asking the DOJ or various states Attorney Generals to keep 
displace or slow-down the efforts of: Lotus (1-2-3) or Word-Perfect 
or other industry leaders. Microsoft has not always been successful, 
there was Microsoft Bob and the failed merge with Quicken. Numerous 
current Microsoft and industry standards took several attempts, such 
as: MS-DOS; Microsoft Windows to become industry standards; the 
Microsoft Mouse was major undertaking and the Microsoft Office Suite 
took years to become the standard.
    As a consumer, I can go into any store and with Microsoft 
Windows being the world-wide standard; I have 10's of thousands of 
applications, games and accessorories to choose from. Prior to 
Microsoft becoming the standard (pre-Ms-DOS days), there were no 
where near the selection. Each app or game had a few choices, 
because developers and distributors did not know or what to risk 
developing and distributing for an operating system that might not 
be well received. Microsoft has without a doubt created and huge 
high-tech industry (again, long with key partners such as Intel) and 
stimulated the US economy more than any other company in US history.
    It is somewhat ironic that a number, if not most of our 
competitors usually solely develop and support their applications to 
the Microsoft Windows standard. The vast majority of their 
developers use the Microsoft Windows standard, so do their techs 
support folks and sales and marketing forces. Without such a 
dominate operating system, our competitors would have to decided and 
divide their resources into 2-3 different focus areas. The same 
applies and more so related to the development of independent 
applications and services.
    Not agreeing in the first place the lawsuit has merit, I am in 
agreement with the proposed settlement. Students and teachers, 
especially in lower-income areas will need to make sure they are 
prepared and able to compete in the marketplace as well as various 
careers. For the foreseeable future, Microsoft products and services 
will remain the world-wide industry standard (that is not to say 
that some other company will not displace Microsoft).
    CC:Melvin Henderson-Rubio


From: Johnson, Daniel 1.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I recommend that the Court require in its remedy, in addition to 
the stipulations already provided (located at http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/
9549.htm), that: Microsoft be required to include compliance with 
relevant industry-standard, publicly available interconnectivity 
protocols and file formats in all software products, and provide 
these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid Microsoft from 
offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but to foster 
competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly available 
all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized formats and 
protocols so that competitors can ensure interconnectivity.
    Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and 
software with these standards. Microsoft must not ``extend'' any 
independent formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft 
be not permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices 
misrepresenting the strengths of MS software and OS's and the 
weakness of competitors'.
    Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to be 
dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is 
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to 
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years. 
Microsoft should be required, for a period of several years, to seek 
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and 
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.

[[Page 25019]]

    I understand that these may seem to be too broad; it is not, for 
all ``connectivity technology is ``middleware.'' Details and 
rationale for why this action is appropriate to this case follow 
below. This recommendation is essentially an enhancement of Section 
    Daniel L. Johnson, MD
    Red Cedar Clinic, Ltd.
    Mayo Health System
    Menomonie, WI 54751
    Respondent's background:
    Profession: general internal medicine since 1978 Experience 
relative to this case: I've been a user of microcomputers since 
1980; an ``occasional'' amateur software developer of word 
processing software 1982-1988; I have monitored the microcomputer 
and medical software arenas, as a consumer and an interested 
spectator, since 1983. I have experience with Apple computers and 
IBM PC's, and have used all versions of MS-DOS or PC-DOS through PC-
DOS 7.0, Windows 3.10 through Windows XP, and Linux OS from Red Hat 
5.0 through 7.2 (the current version). I am a knowledgeable non-
professional with no vocational stake in software or operating 
    I do not have the time to document the factual basis for the 
observations and conclusions I offer below, due to the demanding 
time constraints of my job as a physician and due to other personal 
commitments. I regret this, and would simply point out that this 
factual basis has been well documented within industry publications 
(often indirectly, however) and on the internet. None of my 
judgments are based on private information except perhaps some of my 
knowledge about excess costs to the health care industry due to the 
effects of Microsoft's monopoly on desktop operating systems and 
    Reason for responding:
    I am concerned about the continued non-competitive situation in 
the microcomputer software industry because I have observed that 
Microsoft has used its market and public relations power 
destructively: to stifle competitive innovation, to indirectly 
hinder production and sales of needed custom-built software, to 
destroy, in several ways, many small companies whose expertise and 
software tools have not been replaced; the result has been to place 
inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses generally.
    It places inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses in two 
ways: First, the severe security flaws in Windows operating systems 
and Microsoft's Outlook and Word software (which also have monopoly 
strength in the their markets) have slowed operation of the 
Internet, cause repeated system crashes that harm companies' 
businesses, and expose confidential personal data via software 
    Second, Microsoft is using its monopoly position to raise 
license fees and restrict license terms in ways that create harmful 
fiscal burdens on companies dependent on their OS and applications, 
burdens that would not exist if there were actually competition. 
This is creating financial inefficiency in the business sector 
generally, and in health care in particular--because we are finding 
that software vendors, whose software has run well on non Microsoft 
platforms, are wholesale porting this software to Windows out of 
fear of being left outside the monopoly, resulting in uncontrollable 
increases in license fees and in hardware costs to users. It is 
useful to contrast Microsoft's use of its monopoly markets and 
Intel's. Intel also enjoys monopoly power, but it has not been able 
prevent competition: first Cyrix and now AMID have been able to 
provide satisfactory alternatives to Intel (although some would 
argue that Intel as done its best to destroy both competitors, with 
significant although incomplete success).
    The COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT says: ``On May 18, 1998, the 
United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that 
Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft''), the world's largest supplier 
of computer software for personal computers, restrained competition 
in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 1-
2..... The United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia, which found that Microsoft violated both Sections 1 and 2 
of the Sherman Act .... The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a 
prompt, certain and effective remedy for consumers by imposing 
injunctive relief to halt continuance and prevent recurrence of the 
violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the 
Court of Appeals and restore competitive conditions to the market.'' 
I am convinced, based on my extended observation of the computer 
industry in this country, that the proposed Final Judgment will NOT 
provide a remedy that is effective, certain or prompt in restoring 
competition to the markets in which Microsoft has a monopoly 
position because it does not adequately take into account the 
manifold and pervasive means that have been used by Microsoft to 
achieve and maintain its monopoly position.
    First, the remedies only address middleware (because the 
Complaint addresses middleware). Unfortunately for prospect of a 
remedy that is either ``certain'' or ``effective'' in restoring 
competition to the desktop computer industry, middleware is only a 
small though important factor. It will not be possible to restore 
competition by addressing middleware alone. Microsoft has 
successfully created for itself monopoly positions in operating 
systems for pc's email programs word processing programs spreadsheet 
programs browsers (``middleware'') other less ``significant'' market 
areas By ``monopoly position'' I mean that potential competitors can 
survive only by offering software that mimics the operations and 
functionality of Microsoft software; Microsoft continually changes 
their software's specifications and file formats to prevent this, 
and to make their own earlier versions incompatible with files 
created by new versions, forcing users to abandon the software both 
of competitors and of Microsoft in order to be able to interchange 
documents efficiently.
    Microsoft does not have monopoly positions in server operating 
systems database software programming languages mail service 
internet protocols file/directory management customized software 
This does not obviate Microsoft's monopoly position in all the other 
software areas that it already dominates.
    Microsoft understands that the most important key to complete 
dominance of the software industry is by controlling 
``connectivity''--sharing of documents, images, email, data, and 
directories. I will not expand this response with details; I will 
simply say that Microsoft is attempting to gain control of every 
area that it does not now dominate; the only area that seems 
relatively safe from monopolistic control right now is large 
databases. In every other area Microsoft has in place either 
technological programs or marketing programs that have some 
reasonable likelihood of controlling markets or technology or both.
    As I have observed the evolution of the desktop-computer market 
during the last 21 years, it has been rare for Microsoft to gain 
competitive advantage by itself producing a functionally or 
technically superior product. MS-DOS was a badly designed operating 
system that happened to enjoy the imprimatur of IBM and the 
advantage of open computer architecture. Microsoft purchased the 
leading email software vendor; it waited for the word processing 
market to mature, then imitated the best of what was available from 
multiple competitors, and made Word the ``best'' by preventing 
competitors from learning how to make their own software work well 
with upcoming versions of Microsoft operating systems until 
Microsoft had completed its own work on Word, guaranteeing that the 
competition would always be ``behind'' on the dominant OS. It did 
the same thing with Excel, its spreadsheet program.
    It was not able to do this with Netscape, and so it behaved in a 
variety of destructive ways that are well documented in the trial 
proceedings. In general, I can identify four ways in which Microsoft 
has stifled competition: by purchasing its competition by inviting 
its competition to consider being purchased, examining their 
software technically, and then duplicating their software 
engineering while abandoning the proposed acquisition on one or 
another technicality. through a consistent pattern, since about 
1990, of false and misleading advertising that inflates falsely the 
strengths of Microsoft software and denying its faults or 
limitations while falsely slandering the strengths of competitive 
versions and emphasizing their faults and limitations. By claiming 
to adopt industry standards when offering software for which 
``connectivity'' is important, but actually departing from those 
standards in the implementation, meaning that the output of these 
programs is not actually ``portable'' or exchangeable. (By 
``actually'' I mean that it is not feasible within pragmatic 
limitations of time, effort, and money, not that it is conceptually 
    I may be argued that these actions of Microsoft have not always 
been successful, but these instances of failure do not imply that 
Microsoft has failed to leverage their

[[Page 25020]]

monopoly position; moreover, it has attempted to do so in every 
conceivable way. The effects of this monopoly, as I've noted above, 
are financial inefficiency and operational inefficiency. Microsoft 
is now using its monopoly position to squeeze its business licensees 
(users) financially by raising license fees, requiring software 
upgrades, limiting user rights and otherwise restricting licenses.
    In general, it is true that Microsoft operating systems, in 
comparison to other operating systems (Unix versions, Linux, 0S/2, 
Macintosh, BeOS) are more prone to crashes, are more susceptible to 
security breakdowns and breaches, and do not run as efficiently on 
hardware (computers), entailing financial inefficiency for users who 
must purchase additional servers and spend more money on energy. My 
understanding is that in general, Microsoft operating systems 
require about twice the expenditure for electricity and for 
computers as alternatives. In addition, software vendors are 
burdened with the inefficiency of having to convert software to 
Windows because of the real threat to their businesses from not 
having Windows versions.
    Microsoft will argue that to restrain its practices is to stifle 
technological improvement. It will point to specific instances in 
which its software performs better than other choices. But the 
existence of such specific instances of superiority does not imply 
that its software is generally superior in performance or in design; 
furthermore, even if this were true, Microsoft's practices 
effectively destroy competition and enhance its monopoly powers; 
this defect is more important to efficient commerce than the 
relatively small technical superiorities it points to. Restoration 
of competition.
    In my judgment it will not be possible, by any fiat a court is 
capable of issuing, to ``promptly'' restore competition to the 
market, as the Competitive Impact Statement proposes. At most, the 
court may be able to hinder Microsoft's destructive practices 
sufficiently to permit genuine competition to emerge by establishing 
a competitive environment. Because the future of computing lies in 
interconnectivity of machines and exchange of data and 
communications, the only way to free our commercial society from 
monopolistic domination by Microsoft or any similar entity is to 
mandate that in all its operating systems and software applications, 
Microsoft supply, as defaults, file formats, directory handling, 
encryption methods, data-handling protocols, and other technology 
important in interconnectivity that are publicly available and 
conform to consensus industry standards.
    Conclusion (reprise): Thus I am recommending that the court 
require, in its remedy, that: Microsoft be required to include 
compliance with relevant industry-standard, publicly available 
interconnectivity protocols and file formats with all software, and 
provide these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid 
Microsoft from offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but 
to foster competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly 
available all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized 
formats and protocols so that competitors can ensure 
    Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and 
software with these standards.
    Microsoft be not permitted to ``extend'' any independent 
formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft be not 
permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices misrepresenting 
the strengths of MS software and OS's and the weakness of 
competitors' Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to 
be dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is 
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to 
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years. 
Microsoft be required, for a period of several years, to seek 
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and 
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.


From: Warmenup@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
    As a consumer please note that i agree that a settlement in the 
Microsoft case is good for both the consumer, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Please get on with it.
    Thank you
    Meredith St Pierre
    Boca Raton, Fl


From: Billie R Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:27pm
    It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to waste 
the money It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to 
waste the money of the tax payer to try to destroy Microsoft through 
senseless litigation when Microsoft has done so much for the economy 
of the United States by creating jobs.
    Billie Cox


From: Stefan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:29pm
Subject: Thoughts on MS settlement
    Dear sir or madam:
    I am a U.S. Citizen, a long-time computer user and am appalled 
by the Department of Justice1s proposal to give Microsoft a monopoly 
in education by allowing them to donate Windows-based computers, the 
bane of computing, to poorly-funded schools in the country. This 
proposal is a shame and travesty of justice. Microsoft has acted 
illegally time and again, thus, it clearly is not just nor in the 
public1s best interest to reward their illegal and predatory 
behavior with such a largess. While I am not an Apple Computer stock 
holder, I favor the counter proposal submitted to the Department of 
Justice by Apple's CEO Mr. Steven Jobs.
    Stefan Ingannamorte
    Apopka, FL


From: JNWGOLF@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that I believe that the settlement agreed to 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and 
reasonable to the consumer and is in the public interest.
    It is time for everyone involved to get on with being concerned 
about innovation, creativity, and doing constructive things to help 
stimulate the economy. It is necessary for this matter to be 
resolved for the benefit of the consumer, Microsoft's stockholders, 
and for all the companies that do business with Microsoft Needless 
to say, I encourage the Court to approve the settlement agreed to 
between Microsoft, the nine states, and the Department of Justice.
    Jerome N. Weinberg


From: Max Burford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    It's my feeling that the Microsoft case ruling by the court of 
appeals should be final.
    Quite dragging it out.
    Max O. Burford


From: Geo and Steven Mayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The government should have stayed out of this in the first 
place. Microsoft should be able to do business without being 
manacled by the government.
    George Mayes


From: Rees31@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed government settlement with 
Microsoft which I think is fair to all concerned. Microsoft is a 
significant investment in my personal retirement fund which I will 
need to supplement social security when I retire in
    March, 2003.
    Rees Himes
    31 Sylvan Road North
    Westport, CT 06880


From: Steve (038) Pam Lock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are extremely hopeful and pleased that the Microsoft case may 
finally be settled. We feel very strongly that it is in the best 
interest of both the economy and the country--especially in light of 
recent events--that this settlement proceed to completion.
    In this critical time we feel the DOJ should turn its attention 
and spend its taxpayer funds on the security of this country. We 

[[Page 25021]]

spending any more of tax payers money or DOJ time and energy on this 
case would not bring any further benefit to us the consumer or to 
our country.
    Thank you for your time in reading this and we continue to be 
hopeful that this matter will finally come to a close.
    Steven and Pamela Lock
    1580 SE Pioneer Way
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277


From: Ying, Xingren
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case! U.S. economy and HiTech cannot afford 
this endless lawsuit. Let's compete in the market not in the court. 
Even Microsoft competitors can kill MS in the court. But the 
consumer will be the loser also. We will pay the higher price to buy 
the software and the leadership of software industry will transfer 
to other country.
    So, please settle. We just want Microsoft behave better, not to 
kill it.


From: Chance Yohman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is it unjust for a company to share a large sector of a market? 
This is one of the questions before the United States Department of 
Justice right now concerning Microsoft and the software market. If 
Microsoft does a good job at what it does, then undoubtedly it will 
gain a large share of the market just like it has. Its time to end 
this attack fueled by petty jealousies of other software competitors 
and our federal government's fear of letting individuals do their 
own business. Let Microsoft be and let the market dictate who comes 
out on top. One of the many citizens who this country belongs to 
    Chance E. Yohman
    East Waterboro, Maine


From: james k davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To all those concerned:
    It is my hope that the settlement, which has been reached in the 
issue of the Department of Justice (and some state suits) and 
Microsoft, will be found by the District Court to be fair, complete 
and comprehensive. From my perspective, that of a consumer who is 
dependent on the trouble free, low maintenance, smooth cross-
application performance of my operating system (Windows) for a 
business software function free of problems, it is not realistic to 
deny Windows users this settlement and move on in the world of 
software development and innovation. Please do not be put off by my 
use of the word ``innovation.'' It is the most descriptive and 
exciting word in the world of technological development.
    I am weary of the denial of the existence of other software 
operating systems, systems which have developed contemporaneously 
with Windows, with varying levels of success--DOS (which IBM decided 
they didn't want), IBM's OS2 (a dreadful, cumbersome, and generally 
non-performing system), Apple's MacIntosh (priced out of my market--
by Apple, not Microsoft), Unix (too expensive and too technical as 
it was developed for the scientific and engineering markets of which 
most of us are not members) and Linux (until very recently not 
performing in the cross-application market (through no fault of 
Microsoft's) most users require and still not 'up to snuff' for this 
    Until there is something better than Microsoft's Windows--and 
it's browser--I suggest we stop punishing Microsoft for being the 
    Elizabeth B. Davies


From: DwightNancy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    We want you to complete the Microsoft Settlement. The agreement 
is too stringent in our view, but the US Govt has spent entirely too 
much time and money on this inquisition already. There are many more 
pressing matters needing our tax dollars. Please do not allow the 
opponents of the settlement drag this out any longer.
    We have always felt that Microsoft has served our needs properly 
and have never felt used or abused.
    Thank you.
    Dwight and Nancy James
    10124 Sharon Spring Dr
    Fredericksburg, VA 22408
    (540) 371-4625
    cc: Congressman Frank Wolf
    Senators John Warner and George Allen


From: Chris Aveni
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is of my opinion, and many other Americans of sound mind that 
Microsoft has suffered ridiculous penalties as a result of over 
zealous attorneys and sour competitors. Please name me one other 
company in this country that exports as much as Microsoft in which 
keeps our trade deficit from soaring. Without Microsoft in our 
economy, we would not only have a much more devastating trade 
deficit, but an economy that would be much worse off than it is 
today. Also keep in mind that Microsoft has brought technology allot 
further than any other company has over the years. Microsoft did try 
to stifle competition, and they should be prevented from doing so in 
the future, but it is know time to get off their backs and all get 
back to business. The proposed settlement is overly far to the 
    Christopher J. Aveni
    Technical Analyst
    AremisSoft Corporation, Manufacturing Division
    E-mail: chris.aveni@aremissoft.com
    Internet: http://www.aremissoft.com/


From: CACUSN@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just a quick note to let you hear my opinion on the subject 
settlement (Tunney Act). I would really like to see littigation 
ended immediately. I believe the settlement is fair as is and 
further fighting in the courts will do nothing for me as consumer 
and everything to further fatten the pockets of lawyers and a few 
wealthy plaintiffs. I do not wish to see my tax dollars wasted in 
further litigation against Microsoft and request that DOJ move to 
accept the settlement as it stands. Thank you.
    Chris Carbott
    11508 Boathouse CT
    Bowie, MD 20720


From: ANTIQUESFM@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and a stock owner, I am satisfied with the 
settlement which has been reached.


From: Larry Steinbecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to take this opportunity to speak forcefully in 
favor of Microsoft regarding the DOJ's legal actions against them. 
Unlike the monopoly previously held by AT & T, and currently held by 
the U.S. Post Office, Microsoft did not gain their dominant position 
by outlawing competitors; they outperformed them, thus *earning* a 
dominant position.
    I speak directly from experience as the owner of a computer 
software firm when I say that Microsoft has done this country a 
great service in delivering a single dominant operating system. 
Since my company only has to write software for a single 
environment, it is able to deliver higher quality products and offer 
lower prices than if it had to write software for numerous, 
incompatible environments. Our 2,000+ customers are the direct 
beneficiaries of this fact to the tune of tens if not hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. This same fact holds true for every producer 
of software that runs on Microsoft platforms, multiplied by each of 
their respective customer bases.
    Further, every one of Microsoft's customers, by having free 
access to a web browser, was measurably and positively impacted by 
the fact they did not have to spend an additional $30--$100 in order 
to browse the web. True, Netscape was hurt by this action, but the 
benefit to the country as a whole was immense. Every Microsoft 
customer saved $30 to $100 by not having to purchase a separate 
browser. Each of these millions of users were then able to save that

[[Page 25022]]

money, or use it to purchase other goods or services that they would 
not have otherwise bought.
    Remarkably, Microsoft has been painted as the ``bad guy'' for 
making business more difficult for their competitors. Never mind the 
fact that every action taken by every business in every field is 
done precisely to benefit their own company at the expense of their 
competitors. Every advertisement, feature, and service provided by a 
company negatively affects their competitors' ability to compete 
with them. And yet we are to believe that Microsoft is evil and 
conniving for not wishing to bestow bounty upon its competitors, nor 
make life easy for them.
    The DOJ's actions thus far have further cost the economy untold 
billions. It is not a coincidence that the stock market plunge began 
precisely on the day that the judgment was announced against 
Microsoft. Since that time, the stock market has lost nearly $1 
trillion in value as investors became worried that the tech sector, 
our most productive market segment, was going to come under 
persecution and micromanagement by U.S. Government. The DOJ's 
actions have not just eviscerated Microsoft's value, but the 
retirement and savings accounts of countless citizens who gladly 
owned Microsoft and other tech stocks.
    It should be obvious to anyone of even limited intellectual 
resources that Microsoft, while having a dominant position, can only 
do so if they continue to outperform their competitors. Microsoft 
has stumbled in particular areas, such as personal finance software, 
on-line services and even server operating systems. In every case 
the market has gone to their competitors (Quicken, American On-Line 
and Linux) quickly, efficiently, and without government 
intervention. This same migration will happen if Microsoft ceases to 
offer the best operating system at the best price.
    Microsoft's envious competitors are largely driving this case. 
They are seeking to gain in court that which they could not achieve 
in the marketplace. But it is time for the DOJ to stop acting as the 
special-interest arm of the government for these competitors; 
instead the DOJ should act in the interest of the countless citizens 
benefited directly and indirectly by use of Microsoft's products and 
ownership of Microsoft's stock. I strongly urge you to settle this 
case with the least possible damage to Microsoft, and to let 
America's most productive company alone in the future, to benefit of 
our country.
    Larry Steinbecker


From: James F. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is good for the consumer, the American 
economy and the public interest. I urge you to settle this case 
immediately and not let a few dissidents continue to block a 
reasonable settlement.
    James F. Miller


From: Abe Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    We are in favor of the present settlement. We think continuing 
the ligitation should be stopped.
    Abe Shapiro


From: Robert Feeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05pm
Subject: Settlement Suit
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft Corporation like yourselves and and me are still 
evolving. This evolving in a harsh and competitive electronic 
universe has shown us the best and the worst of Microsoft. Still, I 
believe it is in our best interest to leave MSFT intact and not 
break up the company.
    Robert Feeney
    707-863-8899 fax
    707-491-0737 pager
    rfeeney@interx.net .... rfeeney@interx.net


From: Lonnie Malaska MIS CD(038)C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With respect to a document,
    re: ``Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment...''
    And, a following response,
    re:``The Judge in the Microsoft case ... will decide whether 
additional (or different) remedies are appropriate...''
    As an Systems Administrator working with microsoft products has 
been both, positive and negative. But, the Antitrust Case needs to 
be resolved. I have personally noted that Microsoft is taking over 
other software vendors ideas and thus their product, due to the 
`ownership of the only viable computer OS on the market to-day'.
    Other vendors can't possibly compete with such a giant, I think 
    Fore Fathers addressed this issue.
    Lonnie Malaska
    1795 E. South campus Dr.
    Salt Lake City, ut 84112Lonnie Malaska
    Campus Design
    University of Utah
    ph: 801-581-3136
    fax: 581 6081


From: Warren Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a citizen, a Microsoft shareholder and a retired engineer of 
AT&T, I hope you can come to a positive solution for Microsoft in 
the ongoing litigation. I think that Microsoft has been the most 
progressive software provider, a leading worldwide organization. I 
feel that we will see great progress for the United States computer 
and communication fields that will surpass whatever we have seen up 
to now. Please keep Microsoft's software leadership intact.
    Warren L. Hoffman


From: Virgsal@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I think Microsoft does have dirty hands in this affair, 
the settlement they have proposed seems fair to all parties 
concerned. It is in the interest of our economy to finalize this 
mess and get on with business. This is a very fast changing industry 
and their competitors who are spending so much to fight them would 
do better by putting their money where it could be used to innovate! 
There are still many open avenues to explore!
    Thank you for your time!
    Sally McQueen


From: k7rdn@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair & some of the States involved 
also agree, it seems foolish for States that don't want to settle to 
hold out. It's been a couple of years already-enough is enough!!!
    I think M/S did great things for the average Joe with home 
computers & really don't see how they forced anything on people that 
didn't want various programs.
    I am 79 yrs. old, always thought I was of average intelligence 
until I got a computer about 6 yrs. ago ( I never cursed or talked 
to myself before that ). I just wish I was 70 yrs. younger as my 
grand-kids (all under 18 ) really catch on compared to people my 
    Thanks for letting me spout off.
    Fred Murrell


From: Sid Ghosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, Justice Dept. lawsuit against ha very little 
merit. Microsoft indulged in the same business practice as any other 
reputable viable business enterprise would do. Just that Microsoft 
became successful- may be very successful.
    I think DOJ should reach a legal settlement with Microsoft and 
move ahead, without further punishing a very innovative US 
    Sid Ghosh


From: Auguste Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gentlemen/Mesdames.........
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is 
fair and should be approved.
    It is important to realize how much Microsoft has done for the 
technology sector not to mention what they have done for the average 
American citizen. Without them, we would be years behind and prices 
for hardware and software would be far higher than they are today. 
Microsoft has made us

[[Page 25023]]

the world leaders in the field. Everyone else had the opportunity--
but Microsoft did it. Were they aggressive? Yes, but it served us 
all well. A shrinking violet in this industry does not do us any 
    A billion dollars worth of hardware and software for children 
would be a godsend and would provide them with knowledge they can 
put to good use in their adult years. It will help the economy and 
the reputation of the United States immensely in the long run.
    Do not be misled by special interest groups which object to this 
settlement for their own benefit.
    Auguste Schwab
    6281 Evian Place
    Boynton Beach FL 33437


From: (00B0)(FFFF)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let us not derail an already fragile economy. History does 
repeat itself as
    George Bush Sr. found out abruptly-ITS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY, 
stupid! See, I softened my stance at the end of the statement..Keep 
those middle class jobs fluorishing and good things will happen...
    Dave Mckay


From: Paul DeMar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement would be fair to all parties 
involved. Its time to settle the case and move on.
    Paul DeMar


From: c.g.kazinsky@juno.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for 
them, the industry and the American economy.


From: Joe Doyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:18pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am all for the Microsoft settlement.
    Joseph J. Doyle


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Just settle this case now as is-----don't waste any more time 
and money'


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:18pm


From: Paul Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a concerned citizen, I would like to express my opinion that 
the settlement reached between the DOJ/9 States and Microsoft is 
fair and should be accepted.
    This entire Microsoft litigation is a terrible waste of 
taxpayers money. It should come to a end as soon a possible. There 
are a lot more pressing issues we have today.
    Thank you for accepting my opinion in this matter.
    Paul J. Allen
    17000 Red Bird Road
    Winter Garden, FL 34787


From: Norman Martinusen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This matter should be settled promptly. The settlement others 
accepted was tough but fair to all concerned; and should be accepted 
by the other parties which have not yet settled.
    N.J. Martinusen


From: Daniel Bontz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to settle this issue and stop spending the 
tax payer's money. I am currently living in Florida and do not 
understand what Florida is not agreeing to the Government offer.
    I believe it the offer is a good offer and the matter should be 
settled now.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Daniel L. Bontz


From: John Moore
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment upon the proposed settlement between the 
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. Since the company 
has been found both to be a monopoly and to be misusing the power 
inherent in that position, it would seem that any final result of 
the public's money and effort spent reaching this point should 
accomplish three things at a minimum: halting the illegal conduct of 
the company, promoting and restoring competition in the industry, 
and depriving the company of the gains it has accrued through its 
illegal conduct.
    The proposed settlement fails to accomplish any one of these 
three goals. In addition, the Court is aware that the original suit 
arises because of a difference of opinion regarding the effect of an 
earlier consent order. The wording of the proposed settlement 
appears vague to this software engineer. Even one unschooled in the 
law can spot huge holes which would permit Microsoft to evade the 
apparent intent of the document. From past behavior, this would 
likely lead to continued illegal activity. As an example, the 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to define the ``Windows 
Operating System.'' This means that it will be unfettered from 
employing the method of ``bundling'' additional functionality into 
the OS to attack future competition, just as it has attacked 
Netscape, Real Media, Apple Computers' QuickTime, and a near-endless 
list of others.
    There is no economic incentive for a software company to expend 
the research and development time necessary to create a new 
application if its functionality can be bundled into Microsoft's 
definition of the ``Windows Operating System.'' At the trial, 
Microsoft did not contest that it could define the operating system 
to include a ham sandwich if it desired. This is not appropriate and 
needs remedy.
    The government's proposed agreement does provide that Microsoft 
cannot penalize some manufacturers if they offer to sell the 
application of a competitor. Unfortunately, it does permit Microsoft 
to offer inducements to a manufacturer to exclude competitors' 
products. It seems that under the proposed settlement, it would be 
illegal for Microsoft to--as an example--sell Windows to a 
manufacturer for $30 per PC if it didn't use competing software, but 
charge $100 if the manufacturer included competitors' products. On 
the other hand, nothing in the proposed agreement would seem to stop 
Microsoft from charging everyone $100 for Windows, but offering a 
$70 inducement if no competitor's products were used by the 
manufacturer. To someone who is not a legal scholar, this appears to 
be the same thing. It would undoubtedly have the same result--and 
would not restore competition.
    A just settlement would not only prohibit penalties imposed by 
Microsoft to stop others' pro-competitive activities, but also 
prohibit it from offering any inducements which lead to the same 
result: exclusion of competition from other software companies. As a 
professional software engineer, I can assure you that no settlement 
will truly promote competition unless it fully addresses what are 
known in the field as Application Programming Interfaces (most 
frequently abbreviated ``API's''). In the past, Microsoft has used 
its control over operating system

[[Page 25024]]

API's to extend its monopoly. These APIs are not engraved in stone; 
they change. In the past, they have been deliberately changed by 
Microsoft to hamper other companies. Some of them were not even 
disclosed publicly until experts found that Microsoft applications 
were using ``secret'' OS calls to accomplish results that were 
otherwise impossible.
    Likewise, I see nothing in the proposed settlement which will 
limit Microsoft's typical philosophy of ``embrace and extend.'' This 
exercise of power, only possible to a monopoly, allows Microsoft to 
``embrace'' an open and publicly-defined internet protocol and 
``extend'' it--adding functionality that makes it work properly only 
with Windows clients. To allow for competition to exist, a 
Monopolist Microsoft should have to fully disclose all protocols and 
protocol changes to foster interoperability.
    The proposed settlement will accomplish nearly nothing with 
regard to API's and protocols. Full disclosure is not mandated, and 
Microsoft will see any vagueness in a light that serves the 
company's interest. This is a highly technical area, but a solution 
is available and workable. No API is placed into the Windows 
Operating System without a purpose. There are documents inside 
Microsoft that detail what the API is supposed to do, and how it is 
to be used by programmers. To achieve full disclosure, all that need 
be done is to publish this information publicly--perhaps on the 
internet. API disclosure should not be limited to the Windows 
Operating System, but should also include Microsoft Office. Although 
this suite enjoys over ninety-five percent market share, it has not 
been addressed in the proposed settlement. This will allow Microsoft 
to evade the settlement's rules by simply moving functionality from 
Windows to Office, or offering special terms for Office that would 
not be allowed with Windows.
    If an API should change during the development process, all the 
company should have to do is post the details of the change within a 
reasonable number of days. It would be possible to completely 
automate the process so that when details of the changes are placed 
in the proper electronic ``folder'' for internal sharing among 
developers those changes would instantly disseminate to the Web. 
This will not require any access to any part of the Windows source 
code, but it will level the development ``playing field.''
    Another element of the proposed settlement is allowing Microsoft 
to retain the gains it has obtained through its browser 
monopolization. As a warning against future misconduct, I feel a 
just settlement would require full source-code disclosure of 
Internet Explorer. Since the PC interface seems to be migrating from 
the desktop to the Web browser, failure to do this will simply allow 
Microsoft to continue to do with Internet Explorer what it cannot do 
with Windows itself.
    I will close by bringing up a point which worries me greatly. 
The original decree contained a prohibition against Microsoft from 
taking knowing action to disable or adversely affect the operation 
of competing application products. This seems to have totally 
vanished from the proposed settlement. Microsoft has done this sort 
of thing many times in the past. Unless this anti-competitive 
behavior is addressed by the Court, I fear this business practice 
will continue. Indeed, having gone to trial and been convicted, I 
feel that the proposed final settlement is nothing less than an 
invitation to continue ``business as usual.'' It fails to provide 
even a meaningful penalty for failure to comply. The only penalty I 
see is an extension of the term for two more years.
    Lacking any further penalties, why would Microsoft even care 
whether it chose to ignore these so-called ``restrictions'' for five 
years or seven?
    I urge the Court to reject the proposed final settlement.
    John Moore
    1970 Fisher Trail, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30345


From: JANH1999@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement.
    As a consumer I feel that Microsoft's products have made my life 
easier. I have felt from the beginning that this suit is an attempt 
by Microsoft's competitors to use the DOJ to ``get back'' at 
Microsoft. The DOJ under Janet Reno, allowed itself to be 
manipulated into prosecuting this case. Thankfully, the DOJ under 
Mr. Ashcroft is not buying into this farce. The States Attorneys 
Generals who continue to block a settlement seem to be doing so to 
grab headlines. If I lived in one of these states I'd make it a 
point to vote them out.


From: Raymond Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in support of Microsoft.
    Those people trying to block the settlement are just after the 
money, PLAIN and SIMPLE. Its not about the consumer, its about 
    Raymond Browning


From: JPiscioner@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Consumer, Taxpayer and Shareholder I am opposed to any 
further litigation regarding Microsoft, it seems to me that we are 
penalizing a company who has developed the competitive edge in its 
industry and the competition is crying wolf. I would think that 
enough resources have been spent on both sides to move this 
litigation alone to closure, for the benefit of the consumer and the 


From: Aila M. Horan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    It's time to get this whole politically inspired, Clinton-
initiated Microsoft travesty over with. Take the settlement and get 
busy on more important matters.
    Richard F. Horan
    9442 Clocktower Lane
    Columbia, MD 21046-1817


From: jrod(a)mindsping.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mam/Sir,
    As a graphics designer, I make my living using computers. 
Therefore the issue before us affects me in a uniquely personal way. 
The recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to allow 
Microsoft to remain intact even after a Federal judge ruled that 
they were indeed a monopoly and guilty of anti-competitive practices 
boggles my mind. This decision confirms to Microsoft that they are 
totally free and able to take up the whole personal and business 
computer market without anyone even lifting a finger in opposition. 
First it was Netscape and other smaller computer companies/makers. 
Who is going to be next? Are they going to destroy LINUX and the GNU 
free software movement because it's such a thorn in their side? 
Current memos floating around Microsoft that I have read confirm 
that Microsoft is getting ready to wage war on LINUX. Does everybody 
have to be running Microsoft products and pay them accordingly for 
that company to be satisfied? It seems that is so.
    Frankly, enough is enough. I refuse to stand by and allow a 
large conglomerate of a corporation like Microsoft to exclusively 
engulf the computer market and destroy the freedom of choice that I 
have today. The freedom I have to buy and purchase my own software 
(Microsoft's .NET strategy is trying to change all that with web 
based ``subscription'' fees). The freedom I have to switch out 
components of my machine without having to report them to big 
brother (the new windows activation features in XP become void if I 
change a certain number of hardware components). Microsoft does not 
care about my freedoms as a computer user. They only care about my 
pocket book. If we just stand by and watch, they will take over 
every gate to the internet and computing world, and then set up a 
toll booth and charge us fees for use.
    So I emplore you to please not back down to the Redmond giant in 
a feeble settlement. To Microsoft, money is nothing. Charging them 
with a fine for their corrupt practices and nothing more allows them 
to continue in their march toward total domination of the computing 
world without any resistance. Stand by your decision to not approve 
the DOJ's decision, and please fight for a win that would allow us 
as citizens and computer users to remain free in our choice of what 
we can and choose to do with our computers. Thank you for your time.
    Jason Rodriguez
    Graphics Artist/Designer
    797 Whitehurst Landing
    Virginia Beach, VA 23464


From: bgates
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25025]]

Date: 1/3/02  7:46pm
    We never felt there was any crime committed by Microsoft in the 
first place! What did they not want to do? They didn't want to share 
their system & their knowledge with their competitors???? That was 
the big criminal conspiracy??? Yes, they are an extremely large 
company; yes, all of their systems intermingle & co-mingle 
beautifully. Should Microsoft have stopped innovating & subsequently 
stopped growing?
    The other companies which try to keep Microsoft in the courts 
all the time would be better off if they spent their time trying to 
develop some new & innovative systems & playing the game fairly. We 
have never heard of any company that gives other companies the 
secrets of their business practices & allows them access to their 
innovative methods which (sad to say) earn money for THEM, and 
lessen the profits of their competitors, HAVE YOU? AND--We still 
don't understand how the states got involved and were even given 
monetary settlements for their supposed abuse at the hands of 
Microsoft. We hope the settlement with the 9 states ends this case. 
There has been an exorbitant amount of money spent on this case & 
the time expended by high paid, valuable employees of the Justice 
Department could be better spent bringing to justice REAL CRIMINALS 
such as terrorists, murderers, rapists, gangsters, robbers, etc, 


From: Ron Sadler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Its enough!! Lets get our economy moving again. This has had a 
very negative impact on all technology issues.
    Ron Sadler


From: Sandy (038) Jeff Melin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May it please the Court: that I, as a non-techie computer user 
both at home and work for the last 12 years, recognize the benefits 
of Microsoft's products as superior in delivering utility and 
function to both the average and advanced business user. I also 
recognize the superiority of other vendors products in casual at 
home, the arts, and design applications.
    As a senior citizen, and lifelong student of business and 
economics; I find it abhorent that an innovator, the likes of which 
have been penalized before for similar achievement and creativity--
would again be brought to its knees by the least common denominator 
of our society--success! What has happened to the American Dream? Do 
we really want to squash the incentive to excel and achieve?
    Jeffrey N. Melin
    Carmel, IN


From: Carol Sandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am writing to register my opinion that the Microsoft case 
should be settled as soon as possible and not be further litigated. 
I base my opinion on the fact that the federal government and nine 
states have already reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft 
to address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals 
ruling. I believe that this settlement is tough, but reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. I also believe that this settlement is 
good for consumers, industry and the American economy.
    Carol H. Sandt
    382 River Road
    Pequea, PA 17565 USA


From: Kevin Kendrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I commend the US government and most of the states in 
reaching a settlement agreement with Microsoft, I believe that the 
process and the costs are out of line with the value the citizen/
consumers have received. This is not where we should be spending our 
valuable resources.
    I do not see how this ``U.S. settlement'' helps me and 
definitely do not see how the ``holdout states'' settlement is 
significantly better and worth the wait and expense of getting it. 
It is the job of the government to protect the consumer (not the 
competitors) against harmful practices. I am hard pressed to believe 
that consumers like me need the help of the government in deciding 
if we are getting the value out the product for the price. We vote 
with our checkbooks and companies respond by adding more features or 
reducing the price in line with the value they are delivering. As 
for the response of the competitors, they should be responding in 
the marketplace and not in the courtroom.
    I am a user of Microsoft products and have enjoyed all of the 
additional features they are constantly adding to make the product 
easier and better to use. I call these improvements and am well 
qualified to determine if I should purchase the product that offers 
the improvements. Microsoft remains diligent in providing what the 
customer demands and is spending what it takes to deliver the 
technology to the customer at a great prices.
    Let's get on with it and settle the case. It's dragged on too 
long. Let's spend government resources where they are needed, in 
helping people that need help.
    Quit wasting our money and SETTLE.
    Kevin Kendrick
    Kevin Kendrick
    1305 Lombard Street #6
    San Francisco, CA 94109
    t: (415) 922-3078
    m: (415) 572-4447
    f: (419) 793-7306
    e: mailto:k-j-k@pacbell.net> k-j-k@pacbell.net


From: Texpop@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This AntiTrust Action by the government has gone on too long 
already; let's close this action and carry on with progress. I am 
disturbed that some litigants in this case want to prolong the legal 
    Microsoft did indeed overstep the bounds of fair competition in 
some of their agreements with hardware suppliers, but the solution 
to that problem could have been resolved many years ago by 
addressing the unfair practices and stopping them. Instead the 
competitors enlisted the government to resolve their grievances at 
no cost to them. These competitors had legal recourse of their own 
in the court system if they wanted to pursue it. The complaint about 
bundling software was and remains specious and against the benefits 
to the consumer. For example, Netscape's programs could run on 
Windows. How is that possible? It is because Microsoft gave them all 
the information needed to program their software to run on Windows. 
That is not the action of a company trying to deny use of their 
system. I have yet to hear anyone complain about the cost of Windows 
and other Microsoft products, so where has the consumer been hurt? 
The bundling of software is one of the profound advances in system 
operating systems. This is one of the profound improvements in 
computer software developments.
    Note that Microsoft has been very helpful financially and 
technically to one of its arch rivals, Apple. Microsoft has 
maintained Word and Excel software on Macintosh, even though they 
probably have not made much money for their effort.
    I do not understand what the States (and their lawyers) have to 
gain by rejecting this settlement. Are they more interested in a 
large financial settlement or a resumption of the economic growth of 
the technical industry?
    I think it is the former!
    James R. Lloyd
    514 Whitewing Lane
    Houston, TX 77079


From: Arlene A DiRocco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Special interest groups and politicians who 
want some free publicity are attempting to derail the settlement 
agreement. September 11 is what we should be focusing on and the 
security of our nation and its people. Please finalize this and get 
it over with.
    Arlene A. DiRocco
    10 Old Colony Road
    Burlington, MA 01803


From: KBOOM62@aol.com@inetgw

[[Page 25026]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft alone ...... the only reason they were persecuted 
is that Microsoft was a big target for Fed employees who didn't have 
anything to do. God Bless Bill Gates & Microsoft & Windows ..... did 
you ever have to navigate a computer using keystrokes?
    Dan Keith


From: GYPSYB2@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In full support of the recently reached Microsoft settlement, I 
wish to express my opinion. This is a reasonable and fair agreement 
and will be to the advantage of all concerned and most especially, 
the public. I am a voice of many seniors and am most grateful that 
this settlement has been reached, though I have no personal reason 
other than the enjoyment of the Microsoft programs.
    B. Eaton Rhea


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:02pm
    Please settle. Just like the VCR, we need a standard and 
Microsoft has nearly provided that.
    Now lets get
    Apple to merge!
    Harold W. Weissenburg (halw83@msn.com)


From: Nationgate@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States, I believe that our gov't. has 
already wasted millions in their worthless pursuit of a company that 
has done more for technology and the economy than one could imagine. 
Any ``settlement'' should avoid any and all types of financial 


From: Robert Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please lets get this thing behind us. Microsoft has done 
wonderful things for this country. Let the litigation end and force 
the lawyers to go find other work. BnB.


From: Barb (038) Chuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12pm
Subject: class action law suit against microsoft
    It is my opinion that the U.S.G. is spending a lot of time 
trying to find a dead horse. The several states that are pushing to 
get a verdict friendly to them are just plain greedy. They (the 
states) hopped on a band wagon to get ``free dollars''. The thing 
that one must do at this point of time is say that they will suffer 
no more expenses,fire their lawyers and say that is enough. Not 
being a lawyer it is apparent that the USG has recovered many 
dollars through income tax and other methods.
    thank you.


From: Paula Hettler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring about the end to this lawsuit as soon as possible. 
I believe it is best for all involved.
    Paula Hettler
    1208 Nyssa
    McAllen, TX 78501


From: Marion Dye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have never been so upset in my life over the wanton waste of 
money for this whole lawsuit.
    Why should anyone be penalized for being intelligent and 
industrious, and making things happen. It's a shame that someone has 
to sue because they came a 'day late and a dollar short' to compete. 
Where was this 'person'(s) in the beginning?? They could have 
started this whole thing too. They had every opportunity.
    But no, they would rather whine & moan that they can't compete--
go figure? For the service provided, and being a consumer, I don't 
feel that Microsoft has been unfair to us. We revel in the 'new' 
world they have provided for us.
    I would hope that this 'rubbish' is over--let the competitors 
compete for a piece of the pie. . . . . . . .not sue!
    I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the `outcry'.
    Marion Dye


From: JIMRUNTOM@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Just dropping you a line asking for the government to stop 
attacking Microsoft and use our general tax revenues toward more 
productive purposes. Get politics out of free enterprise.
    thank you,
    JIM Thomas


From: RRodg43063@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I have never written to the government about anything in my 49 
years. However I felt compelled to send a brief email message about 
the Microsoft settlement. Considering the other crisis this country 
has been hit with in recent times. I feel the government has spent 
enough of our tax dollars on a witch hunt. The time has come to 
finally settle this matter and move onto more pressing National 
concerns! Please put me in the column of the Microsoft suit be 
settled, final answer.
    Robert Rodgers


From: Regchuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:20pm
    As a deeply concerned and productive citizen I urge the court to 
accept the settlement proposed in the Microsoft case. The advances 
made by our country by virtue of computer technology has allowed 
enhanced prosperity across the nation. Competition put us there, and 
it must not be curtailed simply because others feel threatened. 
Every business feels threatened by competition, and that leads to 
enhanced creativity and well serves our public interest. One look at 
the marketplace leaves the undeniable impression that any person or 
company with the guts to get out there and compete, is allowed to do 
just that. Witness the number of computer oriented companies that 
existed when Microsoft came about, versus the staggering number 
successfully competing today. That would not be the case if the 
field were anything but level. The proof, is looking us in the eye. 
I consider this case to be fairly considered, but unrealistically 
brought to court when viewed in the bright light of cold truth. The 
expense to the taxpayer has been great enough, and the settlement 
remedy fair.
    Charles M. Asbury
    Attorney at Law
    Sacramento, California


From: Walt Haas (www.xmission.com/haas)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settlement negotiated by DoJ in the Microsoft case. 
I support stronger protections against continued criminal conduct by 
Microsoft as requested by the nine dissenting states, including my 
own State of Utah.
    Walter O. Haas
    717 Ninth Avenue
    Salt Lake City UT 84103
    ``Linux is a cancer''--Steve Ballmer
    ``First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
    Then they fight you. Then you win.''--Gandhi


From: Frakestate@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22pm
Subject: the settlement
    Bill Gates and his Companies have advanced computer technologies 
beyond anyone's imagination. Leave him run his companies his way and 
we'll all profit.
    Victor S. Frake


From: Larry Greene

[[Page 25027]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please drop all anti-trust suits against Microsoft. Microsoft 
has done nothing wrong. Micorsoft is simply popular and deserving of 
success. Bill Gates is an American hero. Anti-trust laws are anti-
business and should be abolished. If monopoly busting is a goal of 
the Department of Justice, then go after the true culprits: Amtrak, 
the U.S. Postal Service, public education, and Indian casinos to 
name but a few.
    Larry Greene
    127 Rt. 2A
    Preston, CT 06365


From: Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I strongly agree with the Microsoft Settlement. 
This is in the interest of progress and freedom to bring to the 
consumers the best products at the reasonable prices.
    Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.


From: Wes Farmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I strongly support the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
believe we, as a people, have many more important things to do than 
stifle innovation.


From: Russell Yuma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I was not in favor of litigation against Microsoft in the first 
place. Now that a settlement has been proposed I believe any further 
litigation should be terminated. The States against settlement are 
wrong in asking for further restrictions on Microsoft and are 
extreme in their thinking. They do not understand competitive 
business and are in fact hurting the consumers they say they want to 
    There should be no more consideration for further litigation. 
All this will do is damage the economy and not help consumers in any 
    Do you hear consumers complaining? I think not and believe 
consumers are satisfied. So, let's put an end to all this action 
against Microsoft.
    Russell Yuma
    PO Box 165
    Oakland, OR 97462


From: Meredith Raney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Sirs,
    It is my understanding that the purpose of the anti-trust laws 
is to protect the consumer and only the consumer. As far as I can 
tell, the only entities even alleged to be damaged in the Microsoft 
case are a few whining competitors of Microsoft.
    I have seen no evidence presented that any consumer has been 
damaged by Microsoft, so leave Microsoft alone.
    Please, just do your job and enforce the law as written to 
protect the consumer and don't worry about a few companies who can't 
run with the big dogs.
    If the consumer starts getting hurt, we'll be the first to let 
you know. Then, and only then, should you jump in and enforce the 
    Sincerely yours,
    Meredith Raney
    2488 Burns Ave.
    Melbourne, FL 32935 Phone (321) 254-5481


From: ThrumHall@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think the DOJ settlement concerning the Microsoft settlement 
is fair. Keeping the company intact is in the interests of all. 
However oversight needs to be taken for a period of time collecting 
any instances of not following the points of the settlement.These 
should be documented and any serious non-compliance of this matter 
should cancel the settlement. Microsoft has been given a chance to 
work out this matter and should take advantage of the settlement and 
work fairly in the marketplace.
    Ted Maligranda
    82 David st
    South River
    NJ 08882


From: Dayna Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor or the Department of Justice stopping any actions 
it is pursuing against Microsoft. The stock has plummited and 
numerous investors like myself have lost a lot. I feel if the 
government had not pursued Microsoft, the stock market, technology 
stocks, would not be in the condition it is in. We can thank Bill 
    If Microsoft has done something so terribly wrong, then why is 
it every government agency and business uses Microsoft products to 
run their computer systems? I am a Federal employee and everything 
we use at our agency is a Microsoft product. All laptops, desktops 
and shared workstations are run by Microsoft.
    I'll bet if some took a look around the Department of Justice 
your computer systems are all Microsoft based. How about email? How 
about work processing programs? How about calendar systems? How 
about spread sheet programs? Should I continue? What about companies 
like Intel? What about their processors? What other companies use 
their processors in as many computers?
    Drop what you are doing, let them get back to business. 
Microsoft is producing the best computer software in the world. Let 
them continue.


From: Hollis Scarbrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to discontinue all litigation 
against Microsoft. I was totally opposed to the government's role in 
the action taken against Microsoft. Microsoft should not be 
penalized for being a success.


From: Randy Hackney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Public comment period for the Tunney Act. Leave Microsoft 
alone; let the settlement agreement stand without further litigation 
being allowed. The last thing the American economy needs is more 
litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles 
    Don't let the lawyer lobby keep this alive for their benefits in 
fees; nor allow the competitors who want to use Microsoft to defeat 
the public interest in encouraging innovation.
    Judy Hackney
    Voter, District 1 of GA


From: TESTA558@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I found the settlement being by far in the interest of all us 
consumers and the entire economy.In settling the case forthright we 
will be able to focus on a much higher priorities:security,waging 
this war and restore our economic growth. At time like this,I 
repeat;The Nation at war and with a collapsing economy, this 
settlement will be definetly in the interest of all America .
    Anthony Testa


From: Stuart Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was pleased to hear that the Microsoft Antitrust case had 
settled in Federal Court, but then disappointed to hear that the 
states ( including my own--Connecticut) were continuing their own 
cases. In my 25 year career I have used many software products from 
a variety of vendors--Borland, Symantec,
    Oracle, Microsoft, Lotus, IBM, Sterling Commerce, MicroPro 
(WordStar), Red Hat, Aldus, to name a few. I have found Microsoft 
software to be the most intuitive and easy to use software; the 
commonality across it's products has saved countless training 
    While Microsoft could be viewed as a monopoly, it can also be 
viewed as a provider of products which work together in a consistent 
fashion. Doesn't anyone

[[Page 25028]]

remember ``IBM Compatible'' which ``meant buy it, see if it works 
and doesn't stop anything else from working''.
    The courts should get out of the marketplace and let consumers 
decide with their wallets.
    Stuart Holden
    Shelton, Connecticut


From: Nancy T. von Hohenleiten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement


From: Larry (038) Sandy Bancroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:50pm
Subject: overzelous greed!?
    All we heard for years is how Microsoft created unfair 
competition. Now, we seem to have governments that aren't happy with 
the results. Maybe we need to check out what is driving them. It 
seems to me that the states & the federal government can't get 
enough corporate dollars that consumers pay for.
    The Tobacco & Microsoft settlement for instance, has shown state 
governments that if they tie-up corporate America in the courts long 
enough they will get free dollars. In Illinois the state in 2000 
sent out refund checks to tax payers from the tobacco settlement. 
Small as they were, the state said not to worry we have plenty more 
dollars coming from the settlement. Of course the money was spent 
faster than it was coming in now we have budget short falls. Yes not 
all of our budget blunders could have been foreseen but the point is 
that money was for smoking related illness that the state will be 
stuck with in the years to come.
    But then again who pays corporate America? No the consumer. Now 
is the time to say to all states & the usdoj. sign on to the 
Microsoft settlement are be left out in the cold without a dime. 
Microsoft has offered a fair settlement to all but some never seem 
happy. Don't get me wrong it's just not the states that aren't happy 
many inefficiently run companies are just as unhappy. They want more 
in the way of free handouts too. America was built on hard work by 
both cooperate & labor. The freedom to take an idea make it work & 
be so revolutionary in a industry is the American dream. Take the 
settlement with all the perks just let Microsoft have the ability to 
continue innovate. For that matter let all companies have the right 
to innovate.
    Larry Bancroft


From: Bill Richardsn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As usual the Hatch justice system and the DOJ 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 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. Orin 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? Coca-Cola and 
Pepsi came out of their rift better companies because of a system we 
treasure here in this United States ``free enterprise''. Would you 
make Ford put in Chevy engines because Ford in using it's own 
engines is predatory and unfair. Is any thing called a ``free 
enterprise system'' fair? No it is predatory and unfair. That is the 
basis of capitalism. If the shoe were on the other foot for Hatch he 
would be gloating and all puffed up like the banty rooster he 
resembles Concerning Microsoft and Netscape, Ford and Chevy had the 
same problems as did Coke and Pepsi, Where Coke had a 90% market 
Pepsi had none in comparison, they remarketed and repackaged their 
products and bought some other popular come latelys Mountain Dew and 
so forth to enhance their market base to compete, then Coke had to 
do the same thing. Ford and Chevy continually made different styles 
of automobiles to appeal to different strata of the market. You must 
be blind to the times when competition was paramount and the 
devising of new strategies be came what stuff men and women were 
made of, competition proved the playing field and then leveled it, 
due to those fresh ideas and innovations of those individuals. 
(Harley in the Chevy design of the 50?s that gave Ford it's impetus 
to innovate, in example)
    You people need a reality check.
    William ``Bill'' Richardson
    Cheif Operating Officer
    Richcorp, Inc. http://www.richcorp.net/>


From: SusanHobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:51pm
Subject: Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice 
Department has now
    Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice 
Department has now offered Microsoft. I believe it is in the 
interest of the American economy and in the interest of innovative 
freedom to support this settlement.
    Dr. Susan A. Hobbs


From: richardlaughlin@webtv.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:50pm
Subject: America Punishes Success
    Dear DOJ,
    Individuals and businesses continue the struggle against Federal 
Government. The economy does not grow; rates of return are down to 
low single digits; and the high tech industry is on ts back.
    The punishing tax rates in the USA and the abuse of the legal 
system by greedy lawyers just holds America back.
    I enjoy Microsoft products. For what little I pay for them, I 
receive tremendous value. Why Oh why do you let Microsoft's 
competitors--with their greedy lawyers--abuse the legal system to 
try to punish Microsoft for being successful? We consumers are not 
complaining about Microsoft's products or prices!!!
    Please please stop punishing Microsoft and lets get the economy 
rolling again.
    Very truly yours,
    Richard Stouts
    P.O. Box 4378
    Pahrump, Nv. 89041-4378


From: Yemm (038) Hart Ltd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:51pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
    Hello DOJ:
    We are a small 2 person business, selling special building 
products in the US and Europe. We could not have had the success we 
have had without the benefit of integrated software from Microsoft. 
Business is difficult enough, and we have little time to invest into 
the workings of our computers or software too, however we must. We 
have found that there is more of a chance for integration errors 
when there is more than one type of software. So we appreciate the 
Microsoft Windows, Explorer and Office software all working 
together, almost seamlessly.
    We have followed the case hoping Microsoft's advisories would 
not prevail. The settlement as we understand it is fair and will 
benefit many young people who otherwise may not get the chance to 
learn and interact with such an essential tool as a computer and 
good software. I would hope that the DOJ could divert its assets 
devoted to this case towards seeking out foreign and domestic 
terrorists because that is the most serious issue we in the 
civilized world face today.
    Stephen W Yemm, Yemm & Hart Ltd


From: Roentman@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Because of their dominant position in the computer operating 
system market I the consumer can walk into any office or home and do 
some constructive work immediately. If the market consisted of 
plethora of competing OS's that would be nearly impossible. My life 
is better, easier and much more productive with the essential 
standardization that has happened largely due to market conditions. 
I have owned computers with different operating systems and while 
theirs is far from perfect, the fact that it is the same whether at 
work or in a cyber cafe in UlanBator, Mongolia has improved my 
computing life not harmed it.
    Christopher Stahler
    Wenatchee, WA


From: Hite, Peggy A.

[[Page 25029]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: My opinion regarding Microsoft's Antitrust Lawsuit Although 
Microsoft's domination of the market could be perceived/interpreted 
as undue control in the market, the packaging made the end product 
far easier for users like me who want one easy, complete unit 
(software and all) ready to be used. If I had to make more decisions 
up front about issues such as whether to use internet explorer or 
netscape, I would not have known what to use. By virtue of choosing 
a windows product, I wanted a compact, streamlined, ready to use 
package of software--without having to spend hours deciding which of 
this and which of that, when I wouldn't have understood the choices 
    Because of Microsoft, we are all more savvy than we would have 
been without their readily available packages to get us started. 
They should not be punished for making an entire system more user 
    Peggy Hite, CPA, Ph.D.
    2304 Linden Hill Rd
    Bloomington, IN 47401


From: Mplgf2000@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please to all conmcverned: settle tjis matter and let's get onto 
positive matters and stope wasting money.
    Good luck.
    Robert Gregoire
    Rumney New Happshire


From: John S. Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54pm
Subject: Stupid Clinton
    CC: RFC-822=Finflash 1-2-02.UM.A. 1154.142@commpartners....
    Dear DOJ,
    You people can and do screw up more things than you take care of 
or at least it seems. I believe it was really the Clit-tongue 
administration. Leave people alone, Microsoft does more good that we 
benifit from directly as consummers than any other company, when it 
comes to computers. I dislike the government enough without you 
people messing around with my computer and software at home. Say 
hello to Mr Ashcroft for me, I have trust in him.
    Regards, God Bless America &
    George Bush


From: Elvinscow@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Early settlement is in the consumer's interest and it should be 
implemented as soon as possible. Microsoft has done more for the 
technology and consumer than any other company. This litigation non-
sense should be finished once and for all.


From: crussell4
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current remedies are totally inadequate to 
protect the consumer.
    I have thought for years that the monopolistic and predatory 
business practices of Microsoft required the splitting of the 
company into an OS company and an applications company. In that way, 
all application developers are on an equal footing...Microsoft vs 
independents. As we found out in 1983 with the break-up of AT&T, the 
development of telecommunications technology flourished. Further 
remedies may be appropriate in this age of the internet and other 
future possibilities.
    Above all, Microsoft must not be allowed to flood schools with 
software as part of this settlement. It would be tantamount to the 
government promoting the MS monopoly.
    Chuck Russell in Great Neck


From: R. C. Dobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot believe that we/our government is still chasing after 
Microsoft's dollars-and that is what this witch hunt is about more 
than just ``justice''.
    Why didn't we look into the anti-trust area regarding Cargill 
taking over Continental Grain? At least we don't have to use 
computers and we could always buy an ``Apple''. I'll bet virtually 
every meal eaten in the U.S. has a food directly or produced from 
grain that Cargill/Continental Grain has touched.
    Leave Microsoft alone and call off the 9 + or--states 
individually pursuing their own agenda. Microsoft may have bent the 
rules, but Sun or many others would have likely done the same if 
they could have. I remember when you were never sure of the 
compatability of programs. Microsoft has done a great service in 
standardizing many applications. (Now if Windows always operated 
just as it is supposed to, but I digress.)
    Thank you,
    R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
    R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
    215 Starbright Court
    Wellington, CO 80549
    cell: 970-215-7173 res:970-568-3991
    e-mail: robert--c--dobson@yahoo.com or
    fax: 970.568.3992


From: JCapFox@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe that the proposed settlement is just and fair. It is 
good for consumers and industry.
    Dr. and Mrs Joseph Fox


From: E. H. John Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I believe that consumers should have equal access to application 
system providers other than Microsoft. If this is accomplished, then 
I believe the judgment should be accepted so that all the 
uncertainties that are affecting Microsoft will be eliminated and 
the company can go forward for the benefit of consumers and, also, 
its stockholders.
    E. H. John Johnson


From: MJS4835665@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Tunney Act
    Dear Court of Appeals:
    I very much support the Tunney Act as currently written (1/02/
02). As a Professor of Management at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, I have long felt that Microsoft has been unfairly attacked 
in their business practices.
    Since they are willing to accept the current conditions under 
the Tunney Act let's bring this situation to a quick resolution.
    For the record I do not own stock in Microsoft or have anything 
to do with the company.
    Best wishes,
    Marc Schniederjans
    5901 S. 72nd Street
    Lincoln, NE 68516
    E-mail: MJS4835665@aol.com


From: TXExperiment@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an a middle aged female of average intelligence who has 
been watching the Justice Department go after Microsoft for what it 
considers 'unfair and predatory practices' for several years now. I 
have heard both sides speak and I must say that while I believe that 
Microsoft did use practices that some may consider questionable, 
(There are also many who believe that WalMart, Intel and several 
others have done the same thing.) they were also improving the lives 
of many average Americans who would not be able to sit at their 
computers today and point and click to go wherever they want.
    Before the Windows operating system became the industry 
standard, the average person, was not able to use a computer at all. 
Therefore Microsoft has helped bolster not only itself but also all 
the hardware and software manufacturers out there, including those 
who have come out publicly against them. I have heard more than one 
CEO of a large company make the claim that without Microsoft's 
innovation their job of running their company would have been made 
more difficult. Most of us don't even remember that this whole 
lawsuit began with a disgruntled company wanting to charge a premium 
price for what Microsoft wanted to give away free. (Netscape) 
Somehow this takes most of the meat out of the claim that 
Microsoft's practices are bad for the

[[Page 25030]]

 consumer. It may not be too healthy for the companies wanting to 
make money, but such is our wonderful free enterprise system. Only 
the strong will survive and Microsoft's very survival over the last 
years certainly is testimony to their strength amoung consumers. 
Yes, it may seem unfair that computer manufacturers have to pay 
extra to Microsoft to install Windows, but so would the consumers. 
They would probably rather see the consumer pay the extra money for 
Windows, which most will gladly spend. Windows is a licensed product 
and therefore it should cost manufacturers to install it. They 
should also keep in mind that computers would not be in as 
widespread of use and therefore bolstering computer company profits, 
if it weren't for their ease of use with the Windows operating 
    The Government also employs monopolistic practices in many of 
it's daily operations. I pay many taxes for things that I don't even 
know about and yet the Justice Department has not once suggested 
that the current systems be examined.
    I recently had an unpleasant experience that convinced me even 
more that Microsoft has done only good for the average computer 
user. (I'm saying average now, not educated.) Our home computer was 
the victim of a virus which totally wiped out Windows. We were 
trying to use MSDOS to save important files and found it too 
frustrating and ended up reformatting our hard drive just so we 
could reinstall Windows. I am only one consumer, but I know that I 
speak for many when I say to the Justice Department, ``LEAVE 
    Thank You for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion. I 
love being an American...GOD BLESS AMERICA!!


From: Stan0613@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I've followed the US Department of Justice litigation against 
Microsoft for several years. It is my opinion that the US Department 
of Justice should not pursue further litigation against Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a large benefit to the United States and the world 
today. They are innovators and market creators, and they have 
created more jobs than any other corporation in today's economy. The 
corporation has allowed small investors to become financially 
independent by creating individual investment opportunities for 
    More importantly; Microsoft has pioneered, developed, and led 
the market in a very successful technology that has allowed the 
United States to lead the world in data processing and machine 
    How can the US Department of Justice think this is preventing 
competition? Microsoft has created opportunity for competition. This 
corporation has standardized the industry and fostered growth 
through excellence in design engineering. Competing corporations 
would have fractured industry standards which would have raised 
prices to the consumer and stifled growth.
    If competing corporations had a better idea, a better mouse trap 
so to speak, and had been able to succeed in the market place, in 
real market place competition, they would have been the first to 
stifle competition. That seems to be the problem. Competing 
corporations were not able to compete in the market place and have 
resorted to influencing government litigation to stifle Microsoft.
    This is my opinion and I thank you for allowing me to express 
    Stan Foster
    211 Robin Lane
    Panama City Beach, FL 32407


From: Paul J Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement q
    Please tally my vote in favor of not imposing any penalties on 
Microsoft or its creator, Bill Gates. An American hero who has the 
talent and ability and drive to create a better mousetrap should be 
rewarded, not punished. Our present day technological capabilities 
with personal computers couldn't exist without the products 
developed and marketed by Microsoft. Whatever rewards Mr. Gates has 
garnered from his contributions to our way of life are well earned. 
On his way to improving our lives, he has created untold wealth for 
untold thousands of others including the very individuals who are 
actively trying to promote the suppression of Microsoft and it's 
superior products. Our nation has no business trying to downgrade 
the production of capable companies for the benefit of competitors 
who don't have the talent to do equally well. We need every bit of 
forward progress that people of ability can provide. Punishing 
Microsoft and Bill Gates is the equivalent of jailing Columbus, 
gagging Newton and Copernicus, burning Galileo's books or 
prohibiting Einstein from publishing and teaching. This country is 
great because of people like Bill Gates and our reaction should 
encourage more like him and not grind them down. Should we prohibit 
Microsoft from tying Internet Explorer into Windows? Should we 
prohibit a furniture maker from putting a fourth leg on a chair 
because his competitors don't know how to make a good fourth leg? 
Let Microsoft go; turn it loose and America will be better for it. 
When the competitors develop truly advanced innovations, Microsoft 
will not be able to hold them back unless our own government 
contributes to their suppression. Thank you.


From: David Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief that a settlement should be made between 
Microsoft and our State and Federal Governments. Innovation is good 
for all concerned and Microsoft has been instrumental in providing 
this not only in our country, but throughout the world. It is my 
opinion that we put this behind us and move forward instead of 
    David Clarke


From: EdandReva@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree with the settlement and hope that it will be executed.
    Ed and Reva Potter


From: Ian Joyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is guilty deserving suitable punishment. The current 
settlement with them is not suitable punishment.
    Ian Joyner
    Expert shortcut tip: Dump Windows; get OS X; fire MCSE certified 
    wasters. XP--eXtremely Pathetic!


From: Norfly@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
    I feel a settlement should be made as soon as possible. Included 
should be a clause disallowing further litigation whatsoever in the 
future. This settlement would also help get the economy going again 
since all the effort being expended to destroy MSFT can be directed 
to the common good.


From: Chetan Desai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to appalaud the Department of Justice in dealing 
with Microsoft anti-trust violations and reaching a fair settlement. 
I understand that most of 9 states that continue to pursue 
additional penalties are politically motivated and driven by 
Microsoft competitors and/or greed in trying sue a big corporation 
with deep pockets. If there is a legal way to do this, I would urge 
you to separate yourself from the nine states that will not settle 
for anything less then destruction of Microsoft. BTW, I am software 
engineer and truly understand the areas where Microsoft has been 
wrong and where Microsoft has been an aggressive competitor who went 
a little too far into the illegal. However, the remedy (several 
proposed are downright un-American and crazy) sought by some of 
states are equivalent to a death sentence for stealing an item from 
a retail store. Best Wishes to the Justice Department and keep up 
the good work!!
    Chetan Desai

[[Page 25031]]

    2042 Pinecrest Drive
    Morgantown, WV 26505


From: Robert Kossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the frivolous lawsuits and get on with life.


From: Ted Keesee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop punishing American Corporations for being 
successful. Microsoft products have been reasonably priced and of 
exceptional quality. I am very disappointed that the government is 
wasting time and money pursuing this matter. There are much bigger 
problems to solve in this world than trying to figure out how to 
punish people for providing products consumers want and are happy 
with. It is time to get over it!
    Ted Keesee
    500 Forestdale Drive
    Atlanta, GA 30342


From: MLMoehle@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is in the best interest of the public at large to proceed 
with the settlement that has been agreed to by Microsoft and the 
DOJ. It would be a mistake to prolong the litigation when there is 
an opportunity to reach a settlement now. The opposition has had 
their day in court---now it's time to move on with the settlement at 
    Melvin O. Moehle


From: JERRYTCFO@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:26pm


From: warren stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:29pm
    Subject: As a free person of the world I implore you to keep As 
a free person of the world I implore you to keep the world free. 
People do not have to but the product of any company if they choose 
not to. Microsoft may have bought some companies but the owners did 
not have to sell them to Microsoft.
    Do not split up Microsoft as it might stop ALL new inventions 
becoming worldwide and only the very privileged might get them. I 
reiterate. Please do not split companies up. If a company does 
wrong, the other companies in that field do not work with them or 
the public boycotts them.
    Keep microsoft the way it is.
    Thank You
    Warren stewart Perth


From: larry@wt6.usdoj.gov@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:35pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    According to Microsoft, their number one competitor is Linux and 
other open source software. Most people agree. The proposed DOJ 
settlement is supposed to make API's and protocols available to 
other developers. However, the current proposed settlement has a 
loophole that would deny to Linux access to Microsoft proprietary 
protocols and file formats. An agreement which which excludes 
Microsoft's main competitor is almost completely empty.
    File formats and network protocols should require approval of an 
independent review committee such as the IETF and be made available 
to open source developers. Open protocols and data interchange 
formats are an essential part of the Department of Defense's Joint 
Technical Architecture (JTA--see http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil/). 
Proprietary protocols are at odds with the both the JTA and the need 
to have competitive sources available for military communications 
    Larry Doyle
    Software Architect--Small Unit Operations Situation Awareness 
System (SUOSAS) A program of the Defense Advanced Research Project 
Agency (DARPA) program
    ITT Industries
    Home address:
    314 Stone Rd
    NJ 07730
    The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily 
endorsed by ITT Industries, DARPA or the DoD.


From: Bob Giese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Only the lawyers are getting rich. 
Where would the P.C. be without Microsoft?
    Robert Giese


From: R Patrcik Scanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Can you folks please get this thing settled. I think that what 
is on the table is fine. I have no interest in this other than it is 
time to move on. I think that Microsoft's competitors are trying to 
    R. Patrick Scanlon


From: The Washingtons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge you to impose a harsher penalty on Micro$oft for 
their illegal activities. I don't believe they take seriously the 
findings of the court and are not acting in a manner consistent with 
halting their illegal conduct and promoting competition in the 
industry. The court should be insistent on depriving Microsoft of 
its illegal gains, not extending their monopoly into the education 
    Craig Washington
    Happy New Year


From: Bill Rice
To: billg@microsoft.com@inetgw
Date: 1/3/02  9:48pm
Subject: windows xp
    Dear Mr. Gates
    I am a long time Microsoft supporter . . . have bought almost 
every upgrade version of Windows, Office, FrontPage.etc !!!! . . . I 
work on as laptop and have a desktop for home, a laptop for my wife, 
and two desktops for my 2 children. I recently purchased the latest 
version of everything available.spending over $750 before the 
holidays. I have been buying Microsoft products for years . . .
    I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED that the XP operating system requires 
that I purchase an additional license, for hundreds of dollars, for 
every PC in my house . . . (this is not obvious on the purchased 
product, from the retail salesperson, on the Microsoft website, or 
in any advertisement.I looked! I didn't have my bi-focals and 
couldn't read the VERY SMALLEST PRINT) I have always supported 
Microsoft.and have not supported the federal and state lawsuits . . 
    BUT . . . I FEEL ROBBED.no salesman warned me that, unlike all 
previous versions . . . I would have to buy separate, EXPENSIVE 
licenses for each computer in my home.(I buy a VCR tape.and use it 
in all my VCRs.) . . . so I am sad to say that tonight I am writing 
to Judge Kollar-Kotally as well as to all of the states attorneys 
general . . . To convey my personal experience.that Microsoft is not 
playing fair with its market advantage . . . UNTIL TONIGHT, I WAS AN 
misled and disappointed . . . my children use XP at school and I 
wanted to use the same operating system at home for projects and 
homework.but to put the operating system on their PCs costs over 
$500 and there is no alternative operating system platform. . . .
    I think the uniformity of platform created by a broadly 
successful Microsoft has helped propel significant increases in our 
national productivity. I now believe that Microsoft is taking 
advantage of the ``little guy,'' and that this pricing scheme may 
reflect a portion of what others in the technology industry have 
been complaining about. I didn't understand or appreciate the 
problem until tonight.
    Thanks for taking the time to review these comments.
    Bill Rice
    CC:Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments@doj.ca.gov@inetgw, . . .

[[Page 25032]]


From: Clif Ars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel strongly that it would be in the best interest of the 
public and the economy for the ``Tunney Act'' to go through. I have 
little doubt that many view Microsoft's domination within the 
technology sector as a monopoly, but to define a true monopoly the 
public's benefit and interest must be harmed. As a consumer, I 
cannot see where I or the consumer base at large has been hurt by 
Microsoft. We as a nation should realize the part that this company 
played in the strongest economy growth in history. The jobs, the 
taxable revenue, and the products that have put this country on the 
map in the I.T. World. Please take a look at some of these companies 
at the forefront of this costly litigation and ask yourself, ``Is it 
the consumer that they are trying to help, or themselves?'' Is this 
the cost of doing business in America?
    What company is going to be targeted next?
    Thank you


From: Rick Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I wish my Attorney 
General could look past his campaign contributions from Silicon 
Valley and support it also.
    Richard Becker
    El Cajon, CA


From: Ross Fontenot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that you should either accept the agreement by microsoft 
and the states or drop all charges. If you try to screw Microsoft 
they will screw you out of millions of tax dollars by taking the 
offer made to them by British Columbia. Microsoft was just as big as 
a monopoly as Walmart but no one ever brought charges against them 
even though charges should be brought against them because they 
squash their competitors especially in small cities like I live in. 
That is why I buy everything on the net because I will not support 
Walmart but I will support Microsoft because they care about their 
consumers and try to be the best while offering great products. DO 
NOT stop this by limiting their innovation. If you want to screw 
someone scew Walmart.


From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I sincerely urge acceptance. Lets move on.


From: chojnack@swbell.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:02pm
Subject: MS Anti-trust and Tunney Act of 1974
    Good Folk--
    In accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974 I'm offering my public 
comment on the MicroSoft Anti-trust case now in it's 60-day public 
comment period that started on Nov. 28. I hav worked with computers 
and computer software in a wide variety of jobs for the past 35 
    I do not think that the current settlement is in the best 
interest of the American people. Microsoft's arguements that browser 
(et al) functionality is part of the operating system is specious 
and without any technically provable merit whatsoever. Further, 
their dominance of the computing field today parallels IBM's over 30 
years ago; even the argumentative stance of the corporate legal 
staff is vaguely familiar to me. And, of course, both companies, at 
the times of their litigation, made and delivered nororiously shoddy 
software products.
    Please contact me if you have any questions or need more 
information ...
    Leon S. Chojnacki CBCP


From: jerry bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel this lawsuit has consumed way too much time and expense 
on both sides...
    Leave the settlement as is...


From: RMinott@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have followed this case from the very start. As an educator, 
parent and computer user. I think the current proposed settlement 
offer is more than fair. It is outrageous to consider complaints 
that: A) the computers offered are out of date or reconditioned. ALL 
computers are out of date within 6 months to a year! If these 
computers are networked in a school, they are simply work stations. 
1. By supplying windows systems, MS is being self serving. If anyone 
else had offered windows, they would have loved it! NO other company 
in the history of our country has EVER been asked to supply a 
product other than their own as part of a settlement! Has the 
government asked General Motors to supply Chrysler products as a 
remedy? and Firestone? NEVER! It has always been, fix, repair, 
REPLACE, supply or refund. The precedent this would create is to 
ridiculous to consider!
    I support an immediate settlement...as proposed by Microsoft.
    Bob Minott


From: Joy Staveley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices,
    I am a Mac Computer (Apple) User, but I also use Microsoft 
software. I believe the recent settlement proposal fo the Microsoft 
lawsuit is fair and in the best interest of the end user--people 
like me.Microsoft has made a huge positive difference in the 
personal and business computer world. Their user friendly, practical 
applications have advanced the technology of computers faster than 
one could imagine! It's time to put this lawsuit behind us, and move 
forward. It has taken a long time to get to this point. Careful 
review and decision has been made. I would urge the court to follow 
through and confirm the decision.
    Joy Iris Staveley, Vice President
    Canyoneers, Inc.
    PO Box 2997
    Flagstaff, AZ 86003


From: William
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08pm
Subject: Please read this letter
    I am very concerned about the direction that this case is 
turning into and its like other case brought before MS. Now its time 
for MS to wiggle out of this like they have so many other times. MS 
proposes that they give a billion dollars of there products and 
services to schools. I am shocked that anyone that knows anything 
about the software industries can even call this a penalty. This is 
like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop (I am sorry for 
using this old phrase). This penalty is a reward to MS. In years to 
come they have more buyers of there product and they get to dominate 
a market that they have battle for many years with Apple.
    I propose:
    First a billion dollars is a slap on the hands (which is what 
they want) for MS. You need to get really tough with this people or 
they are back to doing this again (I my opinion they already are 
doing this with Windows XP). It needs to really hurt this company 
and 20 billion is much better. Second have them put some of this 
money into a trust fund for schools to choose which computer system 
and software they believe is better. Last and most important if they 
have wronged other companies they need to pay these companies big 
dollars or what good does this whole process accomplish? Netscape 
was my web browser of choice for many years but now its MS explorer. 
Not because MS did better but Netscape could not compete under the 
unfair market that existed at the time and ended up selling off to 
AOL. These people have been robbed of there hard work. MS needs to 
pay the wrong to these people!
    I also believe that MS needs to be broken into many smaller 
companies but this is now a thing of the past.
    Thanks for your time.
    William Davis
    232 So. Washington
    New Bremen Ohio 45869


From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:15pm
Subject: End Law Suit


From: Cagakiss@aol.com@inetgw

[[Page 25033]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Anti Trust Division
    Department of Justice
    I am interested in saying YES to the recent microsoft 
settlement. I have reviewed many of the documents in this case and 
think it a good fair settlement for all parties. Our country and its 
citizens have been through enough, let it stand. The settlement as 
it stands would be good for our economy and we can all move on.
    camille mangakis


From: RDL300619@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. Do not let a few disgruntled 
staes and competitors prlong this case. For the good of the 
worldwide economy, settle the case as agreed upon with the 
government. With any decision there will always be a certain segment 
of the population that will not agree, but the good of the country 
should prevail.


From: Audrey Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please hear my voice..This is America..We have the freedom to 
Innovate..We are a proud capitalistic society. Don't take away our 


From: DANDLP@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to have my comments in this e-mail considered when 
making the final judgement in the Microsoft settlement. If you want 
to consider damages, my goverments' actions against Microsoft have 
damaged many consumers much more than Microsoft's alleged monoply 
could ever have. The plunge the stock market took can be related, in 
many respects, to the governments lawsuit against Microsoft. 
Millions of stock holders suffered damages when stocks they held 
plunged in value because of the perceived threat to the technology 
sector of the stock market. It wasn't just Microsoft stock holders 
either, many technology stocks were affected by this lawsuit.
    Microsoft operates in one of the most competitive and dog-eat-
dog businesses ever know to man. It has to constantly be inventing 
and researching and developing new and innovative ways to help 
consumers. The fact that Windows was put in many computers was a 
plus to help standardize a new , and to many people, baffling 
industry that changed the way the world goes about its everyday 
tasks. It made the learning field much more level and less 
confusing, there by familizing many millions of people with a brand 
new industry.
    The public will not be served by prolonging this lawsuit. It 
stiffles the positive energy of this nation that can be used in much 
more productive ways.
    Please for the good of all concerned, let's get this settled and 
move on.
    Thank you,
    Linda Pershall
    PO Box 1922
    Wenatchee, WA 98807


From: Rick Fontana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Lets get our economy moving again I support Microsoft and theie 
ability to create new jobs and opportunity through their technology.


From: JaneM112@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that the government allows Microsoft the additional four 
months to prepare their case. As a computer instructor, I think 
Microsoft has given the consumer the easiest way to use a computer 
with Windows. My students who use Windows become self-sufficient 
much more quickly than those who use other programs. The bundled 
features and products which all work the same way, make learning 
simple and quick. The legal arguments from other companies are self-
serving, ignoring the good of the consumer.
    Jane Mason


From: Tim Semple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You know where the real monopoly resides? At the American Bar 
Association, with its legions of parasitic, bloodsucking lawyers 
ensuring that the taxpayer-funded legal system is responsive to 
their self-centered whims. Why don't you Dept. of Justice people go 
after monopolists like that piece of trash David Boie (or whatever 
his name is - i.e. the shithead who did Al Gore's dirty work in 
Florida, and who a dim bulb in the DOJ decided would be the perfect 
lead counsel to unfairly slander and malign Microsoft while being 
paid with my tax dollars). The courts have been subverted so that 
the Spences, Baileys, Cochrans etc. etc. can plunder filthy lucre 
from people who actually work for an honest living.
    But all the lawyers in the Justice Dept. are blinded by their 
allegiance to the American Bar Association (monkey see--monkey do) 
and walk in lockstep to its every whim. The ABA--now that's a 
monopoly that is screwing over the American public and someone ought 
to do something about.
    Did you know that the post office stopped issuing stamps with 
lawyers on them? No one could figure out which side they should spit 
on. Sincerely yours, someone who is disgusted with the DOJ's 
meddling in the internal affairs of that American success story 
known as Microsoft,
    Tim Semple
    North Pomfret, Vt.


From: JIMW2348@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough !! It's past time to put this issue to rest. It appears 
that big money is buying AG's from some states. There can't be any 
satisfaction in the justice system being a part to their game. A 
decision was made and accepted by the majority. Majority rules, 
declare the Microsoft case closed.
    Thank You,
    Jim Worsham


From: Bill (038) Lou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ystueta Construction
    106 Patrick Henry Lane
    Madison, Alabama 35758
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write this letter to show my support for the settlement that 
was reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The 
antitrust dispute lasted for three years, and it is now finally 
over. America can move on to improving its economy.
    The settlement is offers a fair resolution to the settlement 
that will benefit all parties involved. The terms not only call for 
Microsoft to restructure certain aspects of their licensing and 
marketing, but call for them to disclose information about certain 
Windows interfaces. This not only allows other computer 
manufacturers access to various Windows features, but also makes it 
easier for them to install non-Microsoft software. This agreement 
can only help promote the competitive market, and can only help our 
IT Sector grow as a whole.
    Microsoft has been distracted from its mission by litigation for 
long enough. I support the settlement, and I support letting 
Microsoft get back to being the IT industry leader that it can be.
    William Ystueta


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Leave Microsoft alone, Please!!!!


From: cheryllreed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a life-long resident, registered and regular voter, taxpayer, 
and business owner in the state of Ohio, one of the plaintiffs in 
this case, I strongly urge that the proposed

[[Page 25034]]

settlement be made final and that this lawsuit is brought to a long 
overdue end. I have communicated my strong objection to this suit to 
Betty Montgomery, Ohio's Attorney General, numerous times since this 
all began. In my opinion, this lawsuit was NEVER in the public 
interest. I believe the recession we are now in was directly caused 
by our government's intrusion in intellectual property rights and an 
industry for which they have no understanding.
    As a small business owner, I have watched as other businesses in 
my community have either been driven out of business completely or 
seen their businesses severely damaged by this economic situation. 
To do anything less than settle this case by making the proposed 
agreement official is nothing less than economic treason.
    Microsoft software has revolutionized the way we do business and 
established the United States as the world leader in technology. 
It's time to let them go back to doing what they do best.
    Cheryll Reed
    1231 Richland St.
    Maumee, Oh 43537


From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen and taxpayer, I would like to have you 
settle immediately with Microsoft. NO MORE LITIGATION IS 
NECESSARY...Please quit spending my hard earned tax dollars on this 
and get your priorities straight. Like: terrorists, drug smuggling 
and users who are making our country weak as they have blown their 
brains on drugs, murderers and rapists.
    This is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity. I feel Bill 
Gates is only exercising his rights.
    Bobbie Bamford
    Shelton, WA


From: Campbell McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45pm
To: Those Concerned
    This is just my personal opinion, but I find it upsetting that 
the states and the Federal Government's Justice Division can sue a 
company for being successful. To win, to succeed, to have a good 
product, to overcome competition, and to make money is what business 
is all about. By very definition of the word ``business'' this means 
a group of people joined together to present a product or service 
for the intention of making money. Placing restrictions on Microsoft 
operations is anti business and unamerican.
    Campbell J. McCarthy
    2199 Astor St. (Apt.# 202)
    Orange Park, FL. 32073-5601
    tel. (904) 541-0060


From: Ruth Seelye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:51pm
    I have found other companies, similar to Microsoft, to be as 
competitive as they. In fact, my new computer was installed with 
Netscape, which I did not want, and it crowded out everything else.
    I found a way to delete it Microsoft has been innovative in a 
way which our country must encourage to stay ahead in this changing 
world. This litigation saps funds and restricts on-going research 
and development. Please, let this case be settled, so that Microsoft 
can get back to doing what they do best--creating, innovating, and 
enriching our lives.


From: NOSLEGOF@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:04pm
    As a retired local judge I find the vandetta waged against 
Microsoft, essentially by competitors unable to effectively compete 
in the marketplace, a terribly sad commentary on contemporary 
business and social standards. Our Founding Fathers would be aghast 
at the persistent energy-consuming intrusion into a firm which while 
certainly has been ``raking it in'' has also contributed mightily to 
the welfare of consumers and our country generally. The Microsoft 
saga has not been a Teddy Roosevelt Trust-Busting replication. 
Instead it has been an incidious mischevious intrusion by a well-
meaning, democratic government into trying to poison the incentives 
for creativity.....the very thing that has made this wonderful 
country so great. Ask yourselves.....``Would not other countries be 
overjoyed to have a Microsoft in their midst?''
    I urge you, please, to terminate this foolishness practiced 
against Microsoft and direct your energies in areas that will truly 
will afford benefit to our citizens.
    Thank you.
    Robert G. Fogelson, Taylortown Road, Montville, NJ 07045 973-


From: S.A. Hepps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:07pm
Subject: Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble. 
The American people
    Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble. The 
American people are sick and tired of this stupid lawsuit!


From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:14pm
Subject: On the settlement


From: Richard H Freel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    Four years is long enough! Too long in fact!! All the suits 
against MicroSoft should be thrown out. MS has done more for the 
computer revolution and the national economy than anyone who is 
complaining about them.
    Let them get back to business!


From: Jeanette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    why can't this be over & done with so microsoft can get on with 
the business at hand i think it's gone on long enough & let 
microsoft do what it does very well 'that is create bigger & better 
    Have a great day or night !!!!!!!


From: Kelly V.B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern for the consumers, businesses 
and for Microsoft. I feel that it is high time for this persecution 
of Microsoft to come to a resolution. I feel that Microsoft is an 
outstanding example of what an entrepreneur can achieve in these 
United States of America. Microsoft has help to move this country 
into a wonderful new era.
    I am pleased to hear that a fair resolution is on the 
negotiation table. For the sake of the consumers and for others who 
would like to improve our way of life, allow Microsoft the freedom 
to keep pushing ahead without further fear of persecution.
    Thank you,
    Kelly Van Blokland
    1362 NW Front Avenue
    Portland, Oregon 97204


From: Herbert Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22pm


From: Ann Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't know what we'd do without Microsoft products.Please stop 
the litigation and leave them free to innovate. I think the 
government is making a huge mistake and the court should stop for 
several reasons, one being unemployment. Let the people get back to 
work. Mr. Gates has given millions to education and other causes. 
Why break Microsoft up?
    Annie Jackson


From: Kathleen Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get this settled with Microsoft. It is important to 
consumers and to our economy. I find it hard to believe this was 
ever about protecting the consumer. This consumer has

[[Page 25035]]

been hurt and the economy of our nation has been hurt. Microsoft 
should be applauded for it's economic growth of the American 
    Kathleen E. Johnson


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and user of Microsoft I am satisfied with the 
settlement made with the Justice Department.
    Please do not pursue any further.


From: Anna Jeannet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:51pm
Subject: SETTLE !!!
    To Whom this May Concern,
    I personally think the WHOLE attack on Microsoft has been unfair 
and unjust. They are an excellent company, have excellent products--
--and they certainly do not force anyone to be their customers. 
After all, isn't opportunity what our country all about? Should 
excellence be allowed to be destroyed by the jealous and reduced to 
    This whole ridiculous situation has gone on too long. And the 
attorneys have probably made out like bandits as usual.
    SETTLE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY-----and turn yourselves to 
important worldly issues. Further, I feel that Microsoft should be 
re-imbursed its legal fees by its attackers.
    Anna Jeannet


From: Domingues, Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The recent decisions have been fair, though I believe that it 
shouldn't have started in the first place.
    I have seen Microsoft improve the quality of the operation 
System and offering what the consumer wants. This problem with other 
companies like Sun and other companies should try and make better 
    So what if Microsoft makes Internet Explorer as part of the 
operation System, at least they are offering it in the package and 
not making the user having to search for a downloadable copy of it. 
Like Netscape's version 6 browser which was outright Pathetic and 
slow, but Microsoft produced Internet explorer version 5.5 and 6 
that followed and it was great as a standard browser. With XP for 
example they offered the ability to watch DVD's, in the past you 
would have to purchase some software just to watch DVD movies. In 
the End we have to face it, it is their operation System; they 
should be able to do what they want with it, people should be 
concentrating in Improving and competing instead of whining when 
their product is already a failure.
    Other companies should take example of Intel and AMD, years ago 
everyone also thought the Intel was the evil Monopoly Empire, AMD 
and other companies also whinged, but look today, Intel is no longer 
the main Stream. What happened in this example was the AMD competed 
and also produced a superior product going against Intel's chain.
    I think that it should all end now and everyone should just move 
on and concentrate on the real problems facing the country, instead 
of Bitching on small issues. Remember that Microsoft is pumping 
Money into the American Economy, which currently almost faced a 
recession. I just hop at the end of the day everyone could just move 
on instead of whinging.
    Tony Domingues


From: craig butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time for the federal government to step aside and allow 
one of our country's most dynamic companies of the 20th/21st century 
to get back on track and move forward. Too much time and money has 
been wasted over the past few years. I am hopeful the settlment is 
    Thank you.
    Craig Butler
    Danville, KY


From: The Shaw's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't spend any more of my money (Tax dollars) on 
litigation aginst microsoft. Take the deal and lets get the economy 
moving again.
    Jason Shaw


From: Richard Cote
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my judgment that the whole Microsoft fiasco has gone on 
for far too long. While the proposed settlement may not be 
satisfactory to everyone, it has one distinct advantage. It will put 
an end to this ill advised litigation which I believe has played a 
large role in the downtrend in our markets, and especially in the 
technology sector. What is it about hard fought competition that 
seems to grate on certain members of the community?
    While Microsoft may be far from perfect, as I know from 
experience with all of the various iterations of Windows, it has 
opened the world of computing to the world, and always at what I 
would consider to be a reasonable price. It's time to get this 
behind us and let the world of business and industry get back on 
track. Please end this litigation and accept the proposed 
settlement. Anything less will be an invitation to a further 
deterioration of our economy, and more possible damage to Microsoft, 
one of the bulwarks of our technological superiority in the world.
    I write this as a retired lawyer and business executive who has 
never been involved with Microsoft except as a customer and stock 
holder. But then, I own more stock in Sun Microsystems, so I am not 
prejudiced in either direction, except to say that as a result of 
this ill advised adventure, I'm on the losing end of both stocks.
    Sincerely yours,
    Richard P. Cote
    2008 Calle Candela
    Fullerton, CA 92833


From: mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
    Summary: Microsoft is not the predator. It has used violence 
against no one. It is the victim. Leave the peaceful Microsoft 
Corporation alone and apply your smears and name-calling to some one 
who deserves it: those damn terrorists who brought down the WTC. 
This would truly be a historic act of justice. ***
    Here are my views on the Microsoft case: Some years ago in 1999, 
I turned on my television to witness the frightening spectacle of 
one of Janet Reno's henchman giggling like a terrorist who had just 
blown up an American embassy. The source of his pleasure-and my 
displeasure-was his apparent ``victory'' against a giant 
``predator'' that had ``hurt'' competitors and ``exploited'' 
consumers. Who was this ``predator''?
    An anarchist who tried to overthrow the Puerto Rican government? 
A ``pro-lifer'' who firebombed an abortion clinic? A ``murderer'' 
wanted in sixteen states?
    No, the so-called ``predator'' was American businessman Bill 
Gates and the Microsoft Corporation, creator of the world's best-
selling personal computer operating system: Microsoft Windows.
    Is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the Department of Justice 
insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph Hitler who kills 
people in concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts 
down a neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A 
predator is someone who *initiates* the use of physical force. 
Microsoft has pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case 
for predatory acts can be made against the Department of Justice--
who seeks to violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its 
property--than for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is 
accused of.
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the 
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive 
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors. 
Free competition is not some
    Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal where all competitors 
end up with an equal market share of a given industry. Whether in 
sports, or in business, the whole point of competition is to beat 
your competitors-even to the point of having them going out of 
business. Bigness should not be confused

[[Page 25036]]

with monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is 
not a crime.
    Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of 
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop 
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by 
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired 
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is 
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only 
governments possess.
    Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy 
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power 
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft 
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale 
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the 
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's 
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its 
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's 
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no 
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place. 
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you 
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS this April.
    Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away 
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when 
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's 
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the 
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes, 
but their rights are left untouched.
    Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the 
application of the political principle of individual rights to the 
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules 
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the 
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether 
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not 
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
    Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these 
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of 
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which 
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the 
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the 
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded 
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant 
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough 
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft 
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such 
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting 
burning coals into his eyes.
    By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of 
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws 
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's 
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property 
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the 
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as 
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of 
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple 
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a 
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic 
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute 
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade 
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it. From 
start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more than a 
process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as 
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of 
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan 
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history 
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``.the effective purpose, the 
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the 
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and 
efficient members of our society because they are productive and 
    The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator; 
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in 
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust 
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who 
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think 
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them 
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill 
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the 
American way of life: that of a free, rational, moral society.
    Leave the peaceful Microsoft Corporation alone and apply your 
smears and name-calling to some one who deserves it: those damn 
terrorists who brought down the WTC. This would truly be a historic 
act of justice
    Mark Da Cunha


From: DEasyone@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am amore than a little tired of the antics that have been 
going on regarding the Microsoft litigation. I doubt the suit 
brought against them has saved me a dime on software. I know it has 
cost me about $70,000 in the price of my Microsoft stock. I am 72 
yeas old and I do not need that kind of help. I have been using 
computers since the TI 44A was considered the latest deck top PC for 
the home. I have never had to buy anything I did not wish to nor 
been stopped from buying what I wanted because of Microsoft's 
marketing. I have tried other operating systems and found them 
lacking in what I wanted to do. I have since come back to Microsoft 
because for me they have a better system. Never because I was 
    I use AOL as a Internet because I have liked it. If I change it 
will be because I try something else and like it better.
    As I see it the people who brought the suit, did it for there 
own monitory gain and not for the benefit of the public consumer.
    It is about time this suit is brought to a close so that things 
can get back to normal.
    Of course the lawyers would like to drag it on for ever. That is 
how they get there pockets full.
    David J.Eason
    225 Newport Drive
    Palm Springs California


From: Susan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't see how Microsoft can possibly be called a monopoly. 
Anyone can use any software they choose.
    Microsoft just built the best that is available. I used to use 
Netscape.....I don't any more but no one twisted my arm. I think 
this entire scheme is ridiculous and a slam for the entrepreneurial 
spirit. Why don't you go after the post office, cable company, 
garbage companies or phone companies? The post office is obviously a 
monopoly (government operated) and each of the other companies has 
their own territory in which to operate.....no one else is allowed.
    Susan Smith


From: EJBrofka@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed settlement in this case, I feel very 
strongly that it should go forward as is.
    The reasons that this suit was initially filed were poor from 
the onset. There was a lot of political influence exerted by the 
previous administration in bowing to some major contributors who 
just happened to be in competition with Microsoft. Now, after a more 
enlightened review by the current administration of the previous 
legal processes that took place, a settlement has been proposed and 
accepted by Microsoft DOJ. There remains, however, an intense degree 
of partisan political pressure by Attorneys General of certain 
states to try to get into Microsoft's pockets. This, in my humble 
opinion, is the true reason why those states are not agreeing with 
the settlement. I would like to go on record as stating that I think 
that Microsoft has been the single most effective driving force in 
the ``computer revolution'' of late twentieth century. It, by virtue 
of its programs and technology, has put the power of personal 
computing into the hands of the people in a simple, straightforward 
and eminently usable fashion. Microsoft products, most importantly 
Windows and Internet Explorer, have enabled the general populace to 
partake in and to become part of the greatest information flow that 
this world had ever seen.
    I have, from the very inception of the DOJ suit, felt that the 
suit was unfair, that it was ill-conceived, and that it was totally 
unnecessary. Microsoft has done nothing

[[Page 25037]]

wrong in its actions. They are a good business and have acted 
aggressively to sell, to enhance and to protect their excellent 
products. Microsoft has been successful because of those efforts and 
its products. No one has been or even now is forced to use them. I 
think that the proprietary information that has been developed by 
Microsoft for its operation systems should remain just that: 
proprietary. Those competitors who have ``suffered'' have done so 
because of the inadequacies of their competing systems and programs. 
The truth of the matter is that they need to give the consumer/PC 
user a better product if they wish to succeed. That's the basis of 
business success in this country.
    On the other hand, the greatest business foibles have occurred 
wherever and whenever the government has gotten involved in 
business, productivity and efficiency, areas in which it has no 
history of proficiency. One just needs to look at some of the 
government regulations that have been imposed upon business under 
the mistaken guise of ``helping the consumer.'' A good (and 
appropriate) example is the ``new and improved'' water-saving toilet 
promulgated and forced into use by the previous administration-----
you know, the ones that use one-third less water, but that you have 
to flush three times to have them work properly. Amazing! Al Gore 
and Ms. Browner have earned a very special place in history for that 
    Let this settlement go forward as agreed and approved. Enough is 
enough. I am a consumer who has NOT been hurt in any way by 
Microsoft. As a matter of fact, I have been helped to an immense 
degree, and I personally feel that Microsoft should be honored, not 
    Edward J. Brofka
    2103 Norman Road
    Marion, IL 62959


From: swingingclub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement is just and fair
    Dear Counsel:
    I am please to hear that Microsoft, Inc. has agreed to reach a 
settlement with the US Justice Department. I do not feel it is in 
either parties interest to have protracted litigation in this anti-
trust lawsuit. As we all know full well that litigation means time 
and expense of resources for all parties involved and no one wins 
and hard feelings are the end product.
    At the beginning, and it is still my belief that Microsoft did 
not violate any anti-trust laws. Microsoft is a highly competitive 
company in its industry similar to Wal-mart. There is no law that 
prohibits a company from being competitive. When the matter is 
evaluated on the basis of economic of scales, the dynamics does 
favor Microsoft because of its unlimited intellectual resources to 
create and develop new technologies into the foreseeable future.
    Microsoft should not be hindered by other companies who do not 
have the means to compete. Further, it has been wrongfully argued 
that Microsoft has prohibited other entities from competing in the 
computer industry by anti-competitive tactics. Most of the arguments 
are based on hypothesis which do not take into consideration the 
dynamics of economics. It can be safely argued that the companies 
who object to the settlement are less competitive than Microsoft. 
Those companies do not and will not ever have the resources that 
Microsoft has obtained through its creative skills.
    Factually, each company that has opposed the settlement 
(Gateway, Inc.) is functioning on a less than favorable financial 
tread. Gateway has erroneously argued that the settlement will cause 
harm to the organization because the donation of computers to 
schools will cut into their business profits. Factually, Gateway 
financial problems started long before this proposed settlement was 
    Someone need to review Gateway's financial sheet. In the 
financial community, Gateway has not met its profit projections of 
the last three quarters of last year. Its biggest rival is Dell 
Computer which is the reason why Gateway is having financial 
    The US Department of Justice should look at the economic impact 
that a lawsuit against Microsoft will have on the US economy. It 
will not be favorable. The nine or so state attorney generals that 
oppose the settlement should also take note of the fact that a 
lawsuit against Microsoft will most certainly impact the US economy 
negatively. I will argue that to oppose the proposed settlement is 
nothing less than a self-serving posture which amounts to greed. It 
appears that those states are seeking specific money compensation. 
This suit is unlike a tobacco law suits where human life was taken 
because of a defective product.
    Microsoft has agreed in principle to stop practices which would 
cause other companies harm in competition. In addition, Microsoft 
has agreed to assist other organizations in competition. The states 
that opposed the settlement have not taken into consideration the 
good will and philanthropic generosity of the Gates Foundation which 
has given millions of dollars in charitable donations. I would 
propose that in the event those states who continue to pursue the 
course of opposing the fair and just settlement of Microsoft has 
agreed to enter into with the US Justice Department should be cut 
off from any form of grants or philanthropic gifts by the Gates 
Foundation and Microsoft.
    I would suggest to the Honorable Court to accept the settlement 
agreement that the US Justice Department and Microsoft, Inc. have 
entered into on the basis that the settlement is fair and just for 
America. Protracted litigation should be avoided by any means 
necessary because it will be a waste of valuable resources.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Thomas P. Johnson, III


From: Gary Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let Microsoft alone. The special interest groups are 
served enough. Let Microsoft continue to give us a good product at a 
fair price. The marketplace can decide if the Microsoft is doing the 
right thing.


From: Paul Kessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement, as now agreed to between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department, should be approved. Microsoft has been 
persecuted by its competitors. Microsoft's conduct has been 
beneficial to the consumer. It's products are superior to those of 
it's competitors and they are using every means at their disposal to 
hurt Microsoft.
    Paul T. Kessler, Jr.
    11651 Hidden Valley Rd.
    Carmel Valley, CA 93924


From: Roy Schweiker
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney. general@po.state.ct. us@inet...
Date: 1/4/02  12:25am
Subject: proposed Microsoft $1 billion payment
    I am distressed that the government is prepared to accept 
Microsoft's offer to supply $1 billion in kind to poor schools as 
partial settlement. By guaranteeing Microsoft $1 billion in business 
at whatever price it sets, you are perpetuating exactly the sort of 
monopoly you are trying to end.
    Instead, make Microsoft give the schools $1 billion in cash and 
require that they issue vendor-neutral proposals for bids, which 
would probably allow the schools to acquire double the computing 
power. Alternatively, require Microsoft to provide $1 billion in 
products valued at actual manufacturing cost, such as $6 for a pack 
of CD-ROMs and $1 for a site license. That way every school and 
every household in the country would get a free site license with 
media for Windows and Office. Maybe that is a fair settlement after 
all. Ro
    y Schweiker, Concord NH roy.schweiker@juno.com
    CC:roy.schweiker@ juno.com@inetgw,aweber @cmp.com@inetg...


From: Lucio DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot understand why Microsoft is getting most of what it 
wanted out of this settlement. It seems as though Microsoft is 
getting off easy, since George W Bush has taken office, From reading 
the final judgement, How can this judgement be considered fair when 
Apple Computer and Netscape Communications, Inc have both been 
adversely affected by the actions of Microsoft. What corrective 
action can be made after more than 10 years of destructive 
monopolistic activity?
    I believe that consumers have been hurt by not being allowed to 
decide what browser they could use. I am affected EVERY DAY because 
I cannot use Netscape at work because my Company has `standardized` 
on IE. I have two browsers loaded on my

[[Page 25038]]

computer (Netscape and IE) at work because there are certain 
internal websites that have specifically been modified to work with 
IE only.
    What kind of standard is in IE if it has web content that allows 
a user to access a URL such as ``I:\directory\file''. This works OK 
with IE but does not work on Netscape because it IS NOT A URL by 
HTML standards approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF). Netscape complains about this error but since most people 
(Because they were forced to use IE) have no problem with this `URL` 
access, it is not considered a problem and people are then confused 
about what a URL is and continue to make non standard changes to web 
sites that only work with a NON-Standard IE.
    Sincerely frustrated,
    Lucio DiGiovanni


From: DMiller909@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:28am
Subject: (no subject)
    During the past several years I have followed the government/
Microsoft case.The competitors of Microsoft applied their pressure 
and, in my opinion, the situation turned from legal to a political 
    The Attorney Generals, representing their respective states and 
constituents (competitors of Microsoft) have set forth the claim 
that the consumer has been hurt by the activities of Microsoft. Yet, 
I, as a consumer, would love to know what damage has been caused to 
me so that I would be able to compare it to the financial damage 
caused by the shadows this case has cast over the financial market 
The AG's pursue their ultimate desire which, in my opinion, would 
ultimately satisfy the companies they have in their respective 
States while the investors and the market continue being the victim. 
Moreover, the economy of our nation has diminished in proportion to 
the overall effect that the market has suffered.
    My wife and I have made investments in Microsoft, Aol, Sun, 
Cisco etc.,hoping to build a future financial support for our Great-
grand-children when it would be needed for their college education. 
There is no doubt in my mind that numerous other parents and grand-
parents have invested with the same thought in mind. And, as long as 
the uncertainty overshadows the market the multitude of persons 
invested in the technology stocks will continue suffering the 
financial loss that the case continues to create by causing ongoing 
legal demands , by the AG's ,that surpass the final determination of 
the federal government. The federal government and several States 
have reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft. Why therefor 
should the marketplace and the consumers be held hostage to the will 
of competitors and the remaining attorney generals who insist upon 
additional legal demands. Neither the consumers nor the overall 
economy needs further uncertainty It is time to put this matter to 
    Very truly yours,
    Daniel Miller


From: RShelton5@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    Leave Mr. Gates and his company alone. He has committed no 
crime; he deserves our praise and gratitude for his work. He has a 
moral right to his work and his money. Antitrust laws are immoral 
and design to crush the creative and honest. Cease your attacks on 
him and his company.
    Ray Shelton
    Glendale, CA


From: Jack Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:34 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Public Comment by John A. Carroll
    This comment is on the proposed settlement in U.S. vs. 
Microsoft, and on the Remedial
    Proposals by State of New York et al vs. Microsoft.
    THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE INTEREST My interest in the outcome of 
this case is a consequence of my participation in the open source 
software community. I'm a long-time user and advocate of the Linux/
GNU family of operating systems and related open source 
applications; also, I'm a stockholder in Red Hat, Inc., a commercial 
distributor of open source software. Antitrust legislation and 
litigation concerns not only the direct parties in the case, but the 
public interest as well. Obviously, the interests of the open source 
community form a subset of the public interest, because that 
community is part of the public. However, open source software and 
its development are related to the interests of the general public 
in a much closer way. Open source programming is fundamentally about 
freedom. This body of software is developed largely by end users, 
for the benefit of end users. Most open source projects encourage 
anyone to contribute improvements. Also, anyone is at liberty to 
start a new project and build on the existing body of open software. 
The most common licenses encourage wide distribution of the fruits 
of this open-ended collaboration. The nature of the open source 
community makes it a powerful force against monopolism. It is 
possibly the only body today able to offer the public serious 
alternatives to Microsoft operating systems and office productivity 
applications, and thus effectively counteract Microsoft's 
unrelenting campaign to preserve and extend its monopoly. In certain 
parts of the world a growing user base has already begun to abandon 
Microsoft products in favor of open source replacements. Because of 
the diversity of this community, it can have no single 
representative able to speak for all. It is not a business, though 
it includes businesses. It's not a private club, though it includes 
a great number of local users' groups. Its most productive 
components, the ``projects'', usually don't have even that amount of 
organization; they're geographically dispersed teams of volunteer 
programmers sharing source code over the internet, who prefer to 
give their attention to the programs they have a need for, rather 
than and unwanted apparatus of officers and treasuries. University 
research programs and undergraduate programming classes are 
involved, and many of the customs and practices derive from the open 
traditions of academic research. A great deal has been accomplished 
by unaffiliated individuals. Thus, different members of this 
community will contribute different perspectives to this public 
remedies in the proposed settlement are written around ``ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''--all business entities (section I). 
Developers and suppliers of open source software are neither 
mentioned nor contemplated. Indeed, section J paragraph 2 speaks of 
``reasonable business needs'' and ``authenticity and viability of 
its business''.
    ``ISV'' is counter-intuitively defined to be a supplier of a 
software product that runs on a Windows Operating System product -
thereby excluding a supplier of a software product that runs on a 
non-Microsoft operating system, or a supplier of a non-Microsoft 
operating system. The information to be disclosed to non-Microsoft 
entities includes APIs, protocols, and documentation for middleware 
(section D). It does not include user data file formats used by 
applications. The language of section I could reasonably be 
interpreted to assert intellectual property rights to any 
information which is not specifically required to be disclosed; that 
could be used to restrict the analysis and documentation by 
outsiders of an application's external behavior, or the use of 
information they have already compiled by behavioral analysis. That 
would have profound implications; in effect, it would manipulate the 
Court into restoring and strengthening an application monopoly which 
the open source community has already broken. These are not 
accidental oversights. These provisions are carefully crafted to 
exclude open source software developers from access to the technical 
information necessary to make their creations interoperable with 
Microsoft systems and application software.
    Several open source operating systems have fully demonstrated 
their readiness for the most demanding commercial service. Open 
source office productivity applications have matured to a point 
where their relative merits compared to Microsoft equivalents are as 
much a matter of opinion and taste as objective fact. Star Office / 
Open Office, in particular, has achieved a high degree of 
interoperability with Microsoft Office file formats.
    Now the struggle between Microsoft and the open source community 
is converging on offering end users the freedom to migrate their 
existing document and data files from proprietary Microsoft formats 
to next-generation open-standard replacements. This migration 
process relies heavily on ``filters'', which are utility programs 
that convert one file format to another. Historically, open source 
projects have analyzed sample document files to deduce their 
formatting, so that filters can be written. Once these filters 
exist, end users can migrate to a different

[[Page 25039]]

application package at will without losing their investment in their 
data. Equally, users of non-Microsoft applications can put their 
work into formats that Microsoft applications can read and edit. 
Microsoft's most important weapon to obstruct end-user defection and 
prevent the emergence of a level playing field is the obscurity of 
the file formats used by its office applications. If they can 
continually change their file formats to break compatibility, then 
deny access to the revised format information by a combination of 
secrecy and legal measures, they can erect high barriers against 
migration to non-Microsoft applications, or exchanging document 
files with users of non-Microsoft applications and operating 
systems. This is a powerful anticompetitive tactic.
    Why agree to share information with certain businesses, but not 
with open source developers? Because Microsoft has a long history of 
success in buying out or smothering commercial suppliers of any 
product that endangers its monopoly position--it has every reason to 
be confident of its ability to continue the same proven strategy. 
Those methods don't work against open source developers. These 
developers aren't carrying the weight of a business, so they don't 
need revenue--therefore there's no way to cut off their resources. 
Legal harassment is impractical, because they're scattered through 
hundreds of jurisdictions with radically different legal systems, 
some of which are promoting open source software as a matter of 
national security policy. Their code is released under licenses that 
make monopolization virtually impossible. Their distribution costs 
are negligible. Their archives are duplicated and backed up all 
around the world. And because anybody with a computer and a modem 
can participate at will, their numbers, productivity, and code 
quality are far beyond any business's ability to match.
    Section B applies only to ``Covered OEMs'', which are defined to 
be only the 20 largest-volume OEMs. This leaves Microsoft 
considerable room to impose discriminatory terms and rates on all 
its other customers, and thus penalize any behavior it wants to 
discourage. Smaller OEMs are the ones most likely to respond to end 
users' requirements and preferences -such as offering customers a 
choice of Microsoft, non-Microsoft, dual-boot, or no pre-installed 
software. Section C says nothing about adjusting royalties when 
Microsoft middleware is replaced by non-Microsoft middleware, or 
simply deleted.
    New York et al's Remedial Proposals offer important 
improvements. Their section B paragraph 2-ii contains the important 
phrase ``actual volume of total shipments of the licensed 
products'', meaning that Microsoft is paid only for Microsoft 
products shipped, and not the total number of computers shipped by 
the OEM including those on which Microsoft products are not 
installed. This is a critical issue to the open source community, 
since it removes an economic barrier to offering a choice of 
software to the OEM's customers--and to offering machines without 
software to those who prefer to do their own installations or boot 
from the local network. They do not, however, propose to provide 
open source developers with the same external interface information 
as business entities, nor do they include application file formats 
among the information to be disclosed except indirectly by 
interpretation of a definition (section C paragraph 4). Also, in 
their provisions for interoperability, they discuss middleware but 
not applications; this effectively protects only suppliers of 
software that runs on Microsoft operating systems.
    They do propose to force Microsoft to open-source Internet 
Explorer. Other open source users and developers may disagree with 
me about this, but I don't believe that would be useful at this late 
date. Open source versions of Netscape and its successor Mozilla are 
already the dominant browsers on open source operating systems. 
Nearly four years of work have been invested in bringing the 
original commercial source code up to the standards of open source 
projects, so that substantive progress can now be made. Most of the 
commercially-produced Netscape code had to be discarded and 
rewritten from scratch. It's unlikely that a development team could 
be assembled that would be willing to undertake similar remedial 
work on Internet Explorer. In general, open source developers would 
have little interest in looking at Microsoft source code. It's the 
external behavior that's important for interoperability, not the 
internal design.
    They propose to make the porting of Microsoft Office to some 
non-Microsoft operating systems mandatory. This is interesting, in 
that it could become a stepping stone for Microsoft users to abandon 
Windows first and Office later, rather than attempting both changes 
at once. Several years ago most of the open source community would 
have been interested in porting Office, but the work on replacements 
is far advanced now. It's of interest that the latest version of the 
only non-Microsoft OS which runs Office now is Mac-OS X, which is 
actually a commercial Unix operating system underneath the Macintosh 
user interface. Thus, this version of Office uses Unix APIs. Most 
non-Microsoft operating systems with any significant popularity 
today are derived from Unix (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, 
Linux, GNU Hurd, SCO Unix); thus, it would be relatively easy to 
write the Mac-OS source code according to recognized Unix 
portability standards, so that it would compile on any Unix 
platform. However, the language of the proposal is so vague on what 
the target operating systems would be, that Microsoft could choose 
BeOS, OS/2, and Plan 9, thus frustrating the intent.
    Section L of the Remedial Proposals is of great importance to 
open source software. Open source software achieves much of the 
interoperability among its components and applications by adherence 
to published formal standards. Interoperability between Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft systems and applications is essential to creating 
a level playing field. Thus, requiring Microsoft to be truthful in 
its claims to standards compliance promotes competition and user 
choice. It is also important that definitions of ``standard'' and 
``de facto standard'' are provided, since Microsoft has a history of 
misusing these terms for deceptive marketing purposes.
    1. In section D, ``shall disclose to...'' should be changed to 
``shall publish''. This would place all software developers on an 
equal footing, and make crucial interoperability information 
available to open-source developers working without the financial 
support of a business. In the same section ``APIs and related 
Documentation'' should read ``APIs, file formats, communication 
protocols, and related Documentation''; and ``or Microsoft 
applications to store and communicate user data'' should added 
following ``Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windoww 
Operating Systems Product''. This makes explicit the requirement to 
publish application file formats and network protocols. From the 
view-point of the open source community, enforcing these two 
requirements is the central issue of the whole case, and the key to 
breaking the monopoly once and for all. The requirement to disclose 
application file formats is implied in the Remedial Proposals' 
definition of ``API'', but leaving it less than airtight invites 
tactical litigation and delay. The burden of any such litigation 
would probably fall on the State Attorneys-General, because nobody 
in the open source community has the financial resources to take on 
Microsoft in court.
    2. The Remedial Proposals forbid Microsoft from using agreements 
or retaliation to discourage OEMs from installing non-Microsoft 
operating systems alongside Windows and allowing the user to control 
which system is booted. Microsoft should also be prohibited from 
taking technical measures against multi-booting. It wouldn't be 
difficult to modify Windows to malfunction in the presence of a non-
Microsoft boot loader, intentionally corrupt or overwrite the boot 
loader, or fail after partition re-sizing.
    On the history and nature of open source software: ``The 
Cathedral and the Bazaar'' by Eric S. Raymond, http://
www.tuxedo.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar On the licensing of 
free and open source software: the General Public License (``GPL'') 
by Richard M. Stallman, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/
licenses..html#TOCGPL On the place of business within the open 
source community, ``Under the Radar'' by Robert Young and Wendy 
Rohm, http://www.redhat.com/radar.html
    John A. Carroll
    77 Musket Dr.
    Nashua, N.H. 03062-1442


From: Margaret Baecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 120
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement agreement 
with Microsoft that would provide technology funds, computers

[[Page 25040]]

and software to schools in low-income communities. The State of 
Wisconsin would benefit from the technology funds. Our state falls 
below the national average in the percentage of 4th-8th grade 
students in schools that have computers available in all classrooms. 
In addition, about one half of Wisconsin Education Association 
Council members feel that they have adequate training to operate 
computers and software in their schools. Less than half of these 
teachers feel that they get technology training, provided by their 
schools, to integrate technology into curriculum. The additional 
funding for teacher training in technology would be beneficial for 
smaller school districts, such as mine, which are feeling the 
effects of decreased state funding to meet operating expenses. In 
many cases, there is only limited revenue to provide technology 
training. Needless to say, computer and telecommunication 
technologies are important educational tools in our schools. 
Computer literacy is an educational goal in our schools, providing 
students with technology skills that are needed to meet the learning 
requirements for future jobs. No student or teacher should be denied 
the opportunity to become computer-literate. The proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is most positive, and certainly would benefit students, 
teachers, and schools that need technology funding the most.
    Thank you.
    Margaret Baecker
    Independence Public School
    23786 Indee Blvd.
    Independence, WI 54747


From: jim.puckett@idcchina.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies, Gentlemen:
    I am writing to support the settlement of the Microsoft case as 
it stands today. While I cannot even agree with the pursuit of the 
case in the first case, regardless, it has occurred. First and 
foremost, Microsoft is not a monopoly.
    Microsoft has created the ability for the average person to use 
the personal computer. Prior to Microsoft's comprehensive programs 
for work, together with their operating systems, the use of the 
personal computer was a perilous and cumbersome time.
    I have been a user of the personal computer from the early 
1980's. At that time, with DOS as the standard, loading a new 
program was an arduous task not to mention the ``risk'' you had in 
merely turning off your computer incorrectly. Missteps in either of 
these operations could have easily rendered your PC hopelessly 
``crashed''. At that time, an expensive ``consultant'' was the only 
resolution to recovery of your PC tool.
    Microsoft changed that through its integrated systems. Apple did 
not do it. Oracle did not do it. IBM did not do it. Microsoft did 
it. There system is not perfect. There ``capture'' of the market is 
not perfect. However, they have done nothing that any other 
visionary company could not have done. This witch hunt of a legal 
proceeding is an atrocity and a fierce challenge to the way America 
has become what it is--the place where innovation is rewarded, and a 
better mousetrap universally purchased and used by the average 
citizen. The expert mouse catcher, such as my cat George, will never 
be interested in the tool that is available to us average users.
    Finish this proceeding at the earliest time. Settle this case 
now. Let Microsoft and the American inventor and visionary proceed 
with the next great idea that will fuel the American and world 
economy to new and greater heights.
    Thank you.
    James E. Puckett
    707 Alondra NW
    Albuquerque, NM 87114
    505 897 1040


From: Alan Grose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement that has been reached is fair and 
equitable and should be appoved.


From: Robert H. Fleck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen.....
    Please settle with Microsoft. The proposed settlement is fair. 
This whole case has been going on for far too long. The industry has 
changed so much since the case was brought to trial that it is no 
longer important.
    Settle and be done with it.....


From: Susan Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:59am
Subject: settlement
    I am glad the suits were filed. Microsoft was getting out of 
line. They should not be allowed to dictate how other companies run 
their business. I feel the settlement was enough to ask Microsoft to 
pay, and that unless they get way out of line again, they should be 
left to do their thing, without further penalty. Microsoft is very 
important to the US economy, and is trying to be a better corporate 
citizen, as I see it. I believe they have ``learned their lesson''. 
Their products are truly getting better, and I buy them happily now, 
not begrudgingly, like I did in the past, because there was no 


From: Evangeline Burtch-Farrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Will You PLEASE leave Microsoft alone to do what it does best 
(innovate and create for all of us) and move on to some REAL issues 
of injustice. Enough already.
    E. Burtch-Farrell


From: N. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case, as soon as possible. It is an 
ugly remnant of the last (corrupt) DoJ and one that need not 
continue. The states who oppose it need to be overruled. There is no 
value to the market, to the economy or to Microsoft's erstwhile 
competitors in continuing. Microsoft's so-called competitors (and 
the real impetus behind this suit) will fail no matter how many 
advantages they are given. Don't use anti-trust law to reward 
inferior companies with overpriced products that the consumer has 
long ago rejected, of their own accord.
    Innovation is alive and well in this industry. Open Source 
projects, IBM, Apple, Netscape all are still here and they prosper. 
Microsoft never stifled innovation, it stopped inferior overpriced 
companies (Like SUNW) from preying on less sophisticated consumers. 
How? By giving them *choice. End the insanity now.


From: Dave Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the Tunney Act, and resulting Microsoft 
Settlement, should be completed as soon as possible. It has always 
been my view that Microsoft has been persecuted for the heinous 
crime of being ahead of it's time--nothing more. Their ability to 
outthink and move faster than the competition, and the resulting 
financial gains, are all they're guilty of. Microsoft has generously 
agreed to settle, so let's settle and be done with this dirty 
    Dave Steele
    P.O. Box 103
    Tryon, OK 74875
    918 374-2682


From: PGMUCCI@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:21am


From: ddp2000@tds.net
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/4/02  1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the lawsuits against MSFT. Everyone benefits from the 
great software innovations made at low cost to the consumer. All 
great businesses have high barriers to entry by competition... that 
is good not bad.


From: Donsmckee@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All charges against Microsoft should be dropped. They have 
provided goods and

[[Page 25041]]

services which consumers have voluntarily purchased. No monopoly can 
exist in a voluntary, free market.
    Don McKee
    3165 Sierra Dust Court
    Sparks, NV. 89436


From: Bill Lesnjak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Friends,
    The proposed settlement is appropriate, fair, and beneficial to 
all concerned, particularly to the American public of which I write 
as a member of.
    Microsoft's contributions to our society have dwarfed many of 
others; please, let's settle this matter and go on to the future!
    Will Lesnjak,
    S-4067 Chicken Hollow Rd.,
    Hillsboro,WI 54634


From: Marc Alexander Toppel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Reader,
    I do not know who is reading this, but I hope you to be a 
rational, freedom loving person--someone who's main goal in life is 
too retain justice in a world that has become devoid of it. It is 
with this said that I must describe the reasons why the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case is nothing but wrong for various reasons.
    I know the main purpose of antitrust laws. They are pragmatic at 
best. They hope to make things better for the whole society. 
However, we live in a country that was founded on principles of 
justice, blind of how it might affect others. If habeus corpus was 
stricken from our constitution, I'm sure the judicial system would 
be alot more streamlined, but would it be just? If we took away 
people's inborn right to speek freely, the government would no 
longer have to deal with opposing viewpoints and more things could 
be accomplished, but is it right? A dictator could come in and 
implement a system with which every aspect of our lives were managed 
for the good of society, yet dosen't that vanquish our right to make 
our own decisions in life, bad or good? For everything that you do, 
think not of what the practical implications may be, please think of 
what is right.
    With that knowledge in mind, I must proclaim to you that anti-
trust actions fall short of practical. I myself do not have the 
economics no-how to explain this to you, but I have come across 
countless essays documenting the benefits of a laissez-faire world. 
I will leave such things to the more qualified experts. I do, 
however, stand with the faculties to defend Microsoft morally. They 
created their products. Consumers decided they liked them. Companies 
began to recognize this so THEY DECIDED to enter contracts with 
Microsoft to use their products. Competitors volunteered to compete 
against Microsoft, yet some failed either because they created 
inferior products or they lacked the long term planning necessary to 
establish brand recognition and relability. If you'll notice, 
everything here was done VOLUNTARILY. No one forced anyone to do 
anything. Customers were free to buy or not buy products. Companies 
were free to sign or not sign contracts. Competitiors were free to 
create better or worse products.
    Do not mess up this free society and force Microsoft to adhere 
to your beliefs, for if you do, we become one step closer to a 
totalitarian regime. However, If you drop the case and subsequently 
remove antitrust laws from the books, we stay that much closer to 
the place that our fore fathers envisioned so long ago.
    Thank you for your time,
    Marc Toppel, age 18
    10 Baron's Place
    Conroe, Texas 77304


From: Orrilla Blanpied
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs, we wish to preserve the rights of Microsoft to innovate, 
continue research and development and protect their rights to the 
development of their original ideas.
    Microsoft has contributed revolutionary technology for the huge 
growth and developemnt of our country !! Protect it !!
    O.Blanpied oblanpie@netzero.net


From: Dick (038) Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe this has gone on long enough and most of the lawyers 
can retire now with this prolonged lawsuit. It is my opinion that 
the lawsuit be settled once and for all and let the innovative 
spirit of this product continue. Our economy in the pacific 
northwest needs this company and the jobs they provide and this 
country needs more Bill Gates and less lawsuits that have tied up 
this country long enough.
    Beverly Davidson, Taxpayer.


From: JBPsyD333@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I fully support the settlement as reached and believe it to be 
in everyone's best interests, as both a stockholder and a user of 
microsoft products.
    Dr. Judi Bloom Hauswirth and Dennis Hauswirth


From: Joe Testerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:20 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement offer proposed in the DOJ v. Microsoft case is 
more than reasonable and this litigation should finally be brought 
to a conclusion. I am very concerned that special interest groups 
continue their agenda of pushing for the break-up of one of 
America's largest companies. I find this type of agenda unacceptable 
and way beyond reason.
    Please accept the current settlement proposal and put a stop to 
this long overrun issue. It's time for America to get back to 
business and to continue our focus of competing in the new global 
economy. Thank you for your time and courtesy in this regard.
    Joseph L. Testerman, II
    13208 Myford Road #343
    Tustin, CA 92782
    (714) 832-5851


From: Sophie Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement has now been decided and must be 
allowed to go forward.
    The States, especially California, which have chosen to proceed 
with their suits are just grandstanding. The money they propose to 
use in this pursuit could be better used to help house and feed the 
homeless, provide better mental health services, repair roads, etc., 
rather than being thrown down a rat hole.
    It is time that our public officials stop their waste of our 
money--give up the vendetta against Microsoft--and be prepared to be 
    S. Fox


From: Halle Doucoupolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:31am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This is to let you DOJ folks know that as one of the general 
public I think your behavior towards microsoft is just shameful. The 
great american dream has absolutely no meaning anymore if you people 
keep this farce of a lawsuit going. Where in the world does it say a 
person can't realize their dream, become the richest person in the 
whole wide world and still be happy? What makes you people think 
that you are right by trying to tell this person he can't keep the 
secrets of his success SECRET? That he HAS to remake HIS company to 
suit someone else just because that other company wants to dig 
around in his company business. It's not fair, right or American. If 
this is the way you people treat success it's no wonder the majority 
of the third world hates our guts. It's no wonder the little guy 
(like me) can never get ahead. After all what do we have to look 
forward to?
    Maryalice Anderson, A.A.S,; paralegal; LPN
    Halle Doucopolis,A.A.S.; paralegal; LPN
    Amanda Gates
    Ameenah Rasheed
    4Black Women With Voices/Point Inc.


From: (u)nasturtium
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,

[[Page 25042]]

    I strongly believe that it would not be in the public interest 
to pursue the current anti trust case against Microsoft Corporation 
any further, but rather accept the Revised Final Judgement (dated 
6th November 2001). I believe it is a waste of public funds, 
especially in light of the September 11 tragedy, to spend more on 
this already tough yet fair judgement.
    The Revised Final Judgement, Section IVa, 2a states ``Access 
during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code, 
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other 
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of 
Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters 
contained in this Final Judgment.'' These powers will inevitably be 
misused in ways to benefit competitors eg disclosure of source code 
of Windows Platform software, product direction etc. I dutifully 
suggest this clause be removed in the public interest. Section III, 
``Prohibited Conduct'', extensively covers actions Microsoft may not 
take against OEMs (defined as ``an original equipment manufacturer 
of Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows Operating 
System Product''). This, I believe is an unnecessary and unfair 
power. OEM software is sold at a lower price to OEMs, and ultimately 
consumers. OEM software is released at the discretion of Microsoft 
(in line with academic and other subsidised versions) and Microsoft 
should be able to choose it's condition of sale, as it will be of 
economic benefit to consumers. Therefore, it is clear that Microsoft 
is already bound sufficiently and further actions will result in 
negative effects for purchasers of OEM software.
    Thankyou for your time and consideration.
    Please direct any comments to --nasturtium@bigpond.com


From: Vincent Avona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am pleased to see that a fair settlement has been reached 
between the Federal and State governments. I trust we will no longer 
have to continue waste our tax money and government time on further 
litigation. It should have never started to begin with. Good luck 
Microsoft. ``Let's Roll''
    PS How about putting on the market more software compatible with 
Mac OS!


From: MortEfron@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. The government has spent millions of taxpayer's 
money on a ridiculous case against Microsoft and caused the company 
to spend millions more to defend, which ultimately will cost the 
consumer in higher prices to cover this litigation cost! Somehow, 
over the years, the prices of computers have come down due to 
competition and are now affordable by almost everyone. I don't see 
how any consumer is being hurt.
    Stop this silly witch hunt which is simply costing all of us in 
the long run. Consumers are actually being harmed more by the cost 
of the litigation than by anything done by Microsoft. I believe the 
government is stifling progress. It is time to stop.
    Morton L. Efron


From: E.J. Eiteljorge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I'd like to take just a moment to express my opinion on the 
Microsoft persecution. I absolutely, 100%, completely, thoroughly 
believe that the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft is totally responsible 
for the ``tech stock meltdown'' of the last roughly two years. The 
amount of wealth lost by the average American investor, of which I 
am one, dwarfs even that of Mr Gates, the intended target.
    As such, I believe that a hasty settlement coupled with a 
sincere apology directed to Microsoft, its stockholders and to the 
average American investor is certainly in order.
    Terrance J. Eiteljorge
    Heidelberg Hospital
    CMR 442, Box 990
    APO AE 09042


From: David Winarsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This lawsuit against a great American company is ridiculous. The 
first lawsuit against the Bells did have merit, but in the end the 
gov broke up the bells and now you have bad service.
    I work for a Major retailer in the U.S. and sell both Microsoft 
products and product from their competition, and I have to say that 
the Microsoft Corp. goes all out and improves peoples lives, by 
making their technology easy and affordable to use.
    These lawsuits need to cease and we, as a nation need to come 
together and pull this nation together.
    Thank you,
    David Winarsky
    Boca Raton, Florida


From: Steve S. Scherping
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing you because I am extremely concerned about the 
current state of the settlement concerning the Federal Government1s 
case against Microsoft1s antitrust practices. I feel that harsher 
penalties should take place. Take as an example, the recent offering 
by Microsoft as a settlement for the private antitrust cases brought 
against them. Not only do I believe this offer allows them to 
continue their monopoly since they will be imposing more of the 
software, operating systems, and hardware onto users, it also is 
quite meager since the potential value is $1.1 billion, when they 
readily have $36 is readily available capital. In this case, being a 
monopoly, Microsoft also controls the value of its products so again 
it is able to shorthand those involved in the settlement. I 
understand that this does not directly relate to your case, but it 
is deeply troubling that a company that is supposed to be punished, 
in the end will probably come out the winner again. I am not a rogue 
citizen that has a vendetta against Microsoft. Rather, I am an 
experienced system administrator that utilizes Microsoft products on 
a daily basis. In a university setting we are forced into pricing 
schemes and meager product offerings from Microsoft since our 
students are not capable of using other offerings since they 
consistently use proprietary technology and also force developers 
and manufacturers into sole platform support scenarios. Microsoft 
continues to test its corporate boundaries by attempting to force 
users into using their products. They also continue to alter known 
standards into their own proprietary technology. Please continue 
your efforts to halt the illegal business practices of Microsoft.
    Steve S. Scherping
    Steve S. Scherping
    Business: U of MN
    Communications Technician
    CLA Language Center
    51 Folwell Hall
    9 Pleasant St SE
    Minneapolis, MN 55455
    Ph. 612-626-0013
    Gen. Ph. 612-624-6811
    Email: scher037@umn.edu
    Home: 810 Thornton St. SE, Apt. 1004
    Minneapolis, MN 55414
    Steve's PGP Public Key may be found at


From: Vagabonds2@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    The Federal Government and nine states along with Microsoft 
Corporation have agreed to terms of a settlement. Shouldn't we honor 
that? With the current turmoil in our country, let us ask, ``What 
serves our nation best, both socially and economically?'' It seems 
to me that upholding the proposed and agreed upon settlement is in 
the best interest of our country and people. What is really to be 
gained by dragging this case on for months or years. So if you value 
any input from thoughts of an ordinary citizen of our country, 
``Let's move on!'' Nine states and The Department of Justice and 
Microsoft have agreed to this proposed settlement. As a teacher, our 
students know that in a democracy, the majority of votes makes the 
decision. Aren't we still going by those rules? Let's move on!
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,
    Gary Fine

[[Page 25043]]


From: SSTARJUDY@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    3056 Rue D'Orleans
    Apartment #138
    San Diego, California 92110
    January 2, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the 
settlement that you and your colleagues at the Department of Justice 
have worked so hard to negotiate in the Microsoft antitrust dispute.
    The settlement is good for the technology industry and good for 
the economy, both of which have taken a serious beating as a result 
of this unfortunate three-year long legal battle between the two 
parties. Anytime a settlement is reached, and extremely costly and 
distracting litigation can be avoided, it is a good thing.
    It seems that politics is the motivating factor behind this case 
and that Microsoft's adversaries will stop at nothing to derail and 
destroy Microsoft. These groups and individuals do not seem to 
realize or care that they are hurting the entire U.S. economy in the 
    The settlement ends Microsoft's status as a ``monopoly''. Since 
this was the goal of the government in the first place and it has 
clearly been met, Microsoft should be left alone and allowed to move 
forward. It is time that our premier software company gets back to 
innovating rather than litigating. Thank you for the work that you 
have done on this settlement and for ensuring that no further legal 
action will be taken against this American company.
    Judy Ames


From: CWest51134@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should be more informed about the whole Microsoft 
spectrum and not let politics interfere with any decisions it makes 
to improve the existence of Microsoft in the entire community of the 
computer world. Microsoft has a wonderful product in all the 
versions of Windows and other products in provides to it's customers 
but there is definitely a cloud of greed hovering over the company's 
operation. One would think that the sales of their products would 
produce enough revenue that the tech support would be provided to 
it's clientele at no charge as many other very successful companies 
do. Actually for Microsoft to charge for tech support could be 
interpreted as monopolistic. Once the user goes into Microsoft 
products it's very difficult to drop Windows and seek a replacement 
    The exit option is not readily provided to leave a program 
whenever one wants to. Then there is all the subliminal advertising 
that is annoying. The criticism could go on and on but there 
definitely should be some oversight by some honest, fully 
knowledgeable and not political authority to give guidance to all 
computer industry related companies.
    Not tell a man how to run his company but when you create so 
many billionaires off the backs of your customers who actually 
support you with their sweat and blood is unconscionable. The 
revenue is not apportioned properly in Microsoft so the blame is at 
the top, the authority of the company. It is my hope as a long time 
Microsoft user that the above remarks be seriously taken when it 
comes time to finalize the settlement.
    Charles West


From: Dorothy G Randrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Please close this case, as a settlement has been 
agreed upon. It is my strong desire to have Microsoft proceed with 
the great work they have begun in the past few years.
    Hoping for your cooperation, Sincerely, Dorothy G. Randrup 3728 
E. Balch Ave. Fresno, CA 93702-2804


From: Steve Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:05am
Subject: gov. bogus lawsuit
    The justice dept. had no business trying to corner the Microsoft 
Corp. in an illegal, totally bogus, politically motivated class 
action lawsuit. Because Bill Gates has more brains than any of his 
competitors is certainly no reason for his competitors to stage a 
legal frenzy against him. This lawsuit shows the ignorance (and 
jealousy) of many democratic politicians and Clinton. Heres the best 
advice you're going to get from the AMERICAN PEOPLE : Drop the 
lawsuit, apologize to Bill Gates, pay him back for all expenses and 
then, GROW UP.
    Stephen R. Glaze
    Box 1196, Clearlake Oaks, Ca. 95423


To: Microsoft ATR,rremington@webtv.net@inetgw
Date: 1/4/02  4:25am
Subject: USPS' Heidi Game
    NBC preempted an Oakland Raiders / NY Jets game years ago during 
a close contest for the network televised family classic, Heidi. The 
sports world has never quite forgiven NBC for this gaffe, reminding 
the football fans of the network's ``gatekeeper'' decision at the 
time. Heidi French, Wells Fargo's Orange County based HR manager 
hired me and was responsible for my work assignments during my 
career at Wells Fargo.
    Several times I attempted to relocate back to the Bay Area or 
Los Angeles with Wells Fargo, due to the continuing family attacks 
and corporate hazings / assaults in Irvine. I was constantly denied 
a transfer, due to political and Norwest Financial / Wells Fargo 
merger consolidations, and the fact that Wells Fargo wanted all of 
my family's money and one of their selections as my ``mate''.
    Apparently, the written request for my postal delivery hold at 
the Aliso Viejo / Laguna Niguel, California Post Office is once 
again creatively ignored. I have received three pieces of mail today 
after repeated requests for postal service hold, due to mail 
tampering. My mail was delivered to my home for two weeks after my 
written request was presented to the Laguna Niguel Post Office after 
I discovered mail tampering with my State Of California checks. I 
time the check delivery through California's automated system that 
details the date the check was mailed to me.
    For one week, my mail was held for pickup at the Aliso Viejo 
Postal Center (a carrier's processing facility and not a full 
service post office). After one week, my mail delivery was resumed 
without my permission, along with other family mail to 62 Trofello 
in Aliso Viejo, CA.
    On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, I contacted a carrier supervisor 
at the AV Postal Center who found the California check and held it 
for my pickup later in the day. The supervisor confirmed my request 
for mail hold yesterday. Today, 01/03/02, I received three pieces of 
red / pink color coded mail ... the first, a pink envelope from 
Geico insurance services, the second, an unsolicited Seasons 
Greetings from an unknown Japanese company named Strawberry 
Corporation that went public in Japan in October 2001, and an 
unsolicited red / white colored promotion for Homes And Gardens 
Magazines courtesy of Spiegel Corporation.
    Obviously someone is spending big bucks to pay off government 
workers and others during the big money struggles of the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust trial and related royalty issues I have detailed in 
previous memos. The
    USPS can hold my mail just like anyone else! Several additional 
PAC comics yesterday and today detail the conspiracies. The 
``Crankshaft'' comic spins around a fictional Ohio family and a 
school bus driving ``grandfather' character, Crankshaft, a parody on 
my father. In the late 1960s my father spearheaded a school bus 
program in suburban Illinois with major opposition from church/
school members. Crankshaft yelled at his daughter for having a cold 
(she was sneezing in the comic) and running around in ``socking'' 
feet. The abuse of the English language is a feature of 
``Crankshaft''. Today the blond haired kid was featured in a jazz 
band with Crankshaft and family in the audience.
    ``Crankshaft'', the grouchy one, complained about the ``Tune''! 
Knowing my father's agenda and drive to place me in another music 
performance role (which will never occur) these Ohio crazed authors 
drew a foreplanned comic thinking I would go back to NBC Burbank and 
the Tonight Show again this week after the New Year's Eve live show. 
Actually, after the intentional anthrax?/flu/viral/bacterial 
poisoning on New Year's Day

[[Page 25044]]

(I could feel the immediate effects of the bio attack during my 
workout at the Sporting Club on Tuesday evening) I decided to ``set 
up'' the perpetrators once again, to flush out the game for the 
    Several times at Tonight Show tapings during December 2001 I was 
seated near the keyboard artist and jazz guitar bandleader, Kevin 
Eubanks. I enjoy any seat in NBC studio 3, and I am especially 
pleased to hear the music up close & personal. This band is first 
class! I visited three Nike retail stores, two corporate owned 
showcases, and ran 5 miles with the Beverly Hills NikeTown Running 
Club on Thursday 01/03/02, finishing my workout at 24 Fitness 
Sporting Club Irvine. I am still about eight pounds of accumulated 
fat away from my previous dimensions.
    This addition of weight was NOT, I repeat, NOT from overeating 
... intentional family food poisoning / university hushed 
experiments / subversive governmental people using my tuned athletic 
body as a platform for their Nazi-like human experiments! Just when 
my weight returns to about 160#, the ``ideal weight for me'' and the 
weight I maintained for years in the Bay Area & San Diego, others 
spike my food with poisons that block digestion & normal waste 
passage, causing fat deposits. I have overheard and read several 
features that explain the invasive and totally non consenting 
experiments as protein / carcinoma related, as my father's and 
mother's family has a history of cancers.
    My intentions are not to secure a performing musical opportunity 
at the Tonight Show or other venue at this time. As I have stated in 
a previous memo to the DOJ, I have attended the Tonight Show and 
others at NBC Burbank for professional, Los Angeles based public 
relations. I wanted the Hollywood and Burbank media troops, everyday 
workers like myself, as well as Hollywood's ``moguls'' and my 
competitors to see me in person, not as the Family Ties ``Alex'' in 
the blue sportcoat, but as a human that was subjected to some of the 
most sadistic plots, who triumphed over adversity, government 
subversion, and millions of dollars of negative PR.
    I have been pleased to have worked successfully with over four 
unique security forces in front and inside NBC Burbank, as well as 
many of the private and governmental security staff at the Crystal 
Cathedral, Chicago Stadium, and Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium in 
San Diego. Folks, we have to have immediate closure on this long 
overdue royalty issue, it's really in the billions of dollars, and 
all of the other related issues from Family Ties, Stephen 
Spielberg's SKG team, Universal, McDonald's Corporation, Jack-In-
The-Box, Nissan, Disney / Touchstone Pictures, IBM, Microsoft, and 
others. The issue can be resolved real easily, and by authorities 
through government directed wire transfers and seizures of 
fraudulently acquired assets.
AND THEIR LOCATIONS. I will decide how to invest these assets with 
the guidance of professional investment firms. I do not sponsor 
anyone's investment of my assets without my consent.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Robert Remington


From: Ron Garton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:32am
Subject: May it Please the Court
    The settlement outlined is wholly inadequate. It stipulates 
behavioral remedies going forward, but addresses no punitive damages 
whatsoever for Microsoft's continuing illegal actions since the 1995 
consent decree. Why? In addition, the terminology 'middleware' is 
used in such a vague manner, as to render the agreement virtually 
unenforceable. Microsoft's clear violation(s) of the Sherman Anti-
trust law are no less significant than the Teapot Dome scandal of 
the 1800's in U.S. history.
    Clearly, there can be no question as to Microsoft's guilt, and 
the government's desire to 'close the book' on this action; based in 
part on publicized statements that indicated it was 'in the best 
interest of the country and the technology sector', is nothing more 
than partisan politics. Frankly, to use the events of 9/11 and other 
current events occurring around the world as a substantive 'reason' 
to end this action makes me ill to my stomach.
    I wonder, if the government compiled a list of 'industry 
standards' bodies that have been formed over the last 20 years, and 
analyzed Microsoft's commitment to those, what they would find? As a 
contributing member to several of those organizations, I can speak 
from experience, Microsoft only contributed to Standards Bodies ( 
that would've produced cheaper, more compatible software that would 
run on any operating system, regardless of hardware ... ) when it 
saw an opportunity to influence peddle it's proprietary view of 
software and operating systems. IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WHERE A 
Doubt) to undermine the effort. In essence, their actions, as noted 
in the Consent decree of 1995, were in direct violation of the 
Sherman Anti-trust Law. How then, do we determine as a country, 
through our 'duly' elected officials, that those activities haven't 
harmed consumers, sufficient to warrant some form of punitive 
damages? While the rest of the technology industry was attempting to 
create the '110V' standard connectivity for software, Microsoft was 
publicly proclaiming that it ALONE had the power to dictate what 
standard the rest of the country (and the world) would use for 
connecting software between computers, operating systems and all 
manner of digital devices?
    Did this fact escape the DOJ in their reasoning process? In my 
view, the ONLY recourse is to :
    1. Break the company into (2) or more distinct operating 
companies, and require that all Microsoft Office tools source code 
be auctioned to a top 20 international s/w company, for the express 
purpose of porting it to alternate operating systems.
    2. In addition, all source code for the Internet Explorer 
Browser needs to go the same route.
    3. All Microsoft Operating System interfaces (API's) and source 
code must be placed in the public domain.
    4. Future Operating System enhancements must pass muster with an 
Industry Consortium, comprised of a cross-section of senior leaders 
in the IT industry, not just so-called 'Microsoft enemies'
    5. Marketing/Sales activities should be monitored by a 'DOJ' 
oversight committee, similar in concept to the proposed 
``governance'' body.
    6. Microsoft should not be allowed to 'buy' or 'invest' in early 
stage technology companies until a pre-determined 'moratorium' 
period has expired, based on the execution date of the amended 
    The basic principles of these sanctions will yield significant 
benefits immediately in 'stimulating' innovation in the technology 
sector, by forcing more competition and providing investors, 
consumers and early stage startup companies COMPLETE confidence that 
the technology that they build/buy, will ultimately be compatible 
with ANY Web Browser and/or operating system. Companies can then be 
FREE to compete on the basis of WHO they sell to, WHAT clearly 
distinguishes their product from the competition with the confidence 
that they won't suffer repercussions from MS.
    Has it gone without notice that the rest of the computing world 
(specifically, Europe and Asia) have similar views of Microsoft's 
exclusionary practices?
    If Mr. Gates wants to run his business in this country, and 
remain a citizen of this country, perhaps he should consider the 
protection he receives from our laws ... laws that he has knowingly 
violated. If he can't manage his company by those laws, then we 
should gladly hand him his pink slip, and send him, his company and 
anyone who works for him, on their merry way to whatever country 
would like their tax dollars. My sense of it is, this country is 
much bigger than just Microsoft, and aspires to a higher level of 
ethics and standards, than those practiced by Mr. Gate's staff. We 
will do just fine as a country and/or an industry with or without 
Microsoft and their tax dollars and jobs.
    I've been following this case, and this company, for many years. 
I'm a 25 year veteran of the Computer industry, and I thinks it time 
that we as a country (and as a Justice Department), finally stood up 
to Microsoft and deliver the judgment that has been long overdue. A 
concerned, informed Technology citizen.


From: Robin Mockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:

[[Page 25045]]

    I am informed that I can comment on the Microsoft settlement by 
sending an e-mail to your address.
    My comment is that the lesser 'punishments' now being imposed on 
Microsoft are less unjust than the previously-attempted split-up of 
the company. However, they are still unjust because Microsoft has 
done nothing wrong and does not deserve any punishment whatsoever.
    I am not a Microsoft employee or even very knowledgeable about 
computers, beyond being able to send e-mail messages (for which I am 
grateful to Bill Gates and inventors like him), but if I knew more I 
could probably offer specific technical reasons why punishing his 
company will hurt the economy and slow the rate of increase in 
everyone's living standards.
    Instead, I will make a simple moral claim that antitrust laws as 
such are inherently unjust, as explained by Alan Greenspan in essays 
in Ayn Rand's book, --Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal--. Antitrust 
laws in any form constitute a tyrannical element within the 
government, because (1) they impose punishment on people simply for 
being productive, and (2) they impose punishment in a manner which 
cannot be predicted in advance, or which depends on subjective 
interpretations by judges or government prosecutors. Consequently, 
the decisions of productive businessmen are controlled by the 
personal opinions of government agents, rather than objectively 
written statutes. This makes some of the businessmen produce less 
because their decisions are blocked, others because they are afraid 
of unanticipated penalties, and others because they choose to make 
less effort in such a climate. More importantly, it demeans leaders 
who deserve gratitude from the rest of us.
    Yours sincerely,
    Robin Mockett, Ph.D.


From: Dexter Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:34am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
    I am repeating this message in order to ensure you have it for 
inclusion in the public record.
    Dexter Anderson
From: Dexter Anderson
To: Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Cc: Anderson, Dexter
Sent: 2001-12-12 12:25
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    1. The action against Microsoft should never have been launched 
during the last Administration, and the sooner it is wound up, 
without damage to this quintessentially American company, the 
    2. We sometimes seem to have a death wish. As in the AT&T 
dismemberment of 1983/1984, we have in Microsoft a company that is 
admired throughout the world, yet some seem to derive a perverse 
satisfaction from seeing whether they can smash it up.
    3. It is one thing to go after a company on antitrust grounds if 
it threatens to corner the market on a physical resource such as oil 
or silver. But intellectual property is infinitely expandable. If 
Microsoft does not keep investing better intellectual mousetraps, or 
if the buying public believes it is overcharging, it will quickly 
lose ground to competitors. The competitive system is self-
correcting. There is no need for government to step in. There is 
need for government not to step in.
    4. Microsoft's competitors should fight it in the marketplace, 
not in the courtroom. It's shameful enough for the CEO of a 
competing company to come whining to the Department of Justice when 
he fails to obtain the results he desires in the marketplace; it is 
downright disgusting to see him crossing the ocean to denounce his 
countrymen from Microsoft before officials of the European 
    5. The bundling charge took first place for absurdity. One may 
as well tell a car manufacturer not to include tires, or a radio, 
with his product.
    6. The States should have no role in in the Microsoft matter or 
in similar matters involving companies that are clearly national in 
character.. The Constitution gives the regulation of interstate 
commerce to the U.S. Congress. The threat to companies of hostile 
action (sometimes, as in this case, politically motivated) by 
regulatory authorities of 50 states unnecessarily raises the cost of 
goods and services and harms U.S. competitiveness.
    Thank you for considering my views.
    Dexter Anderson
    29 Sherwood Drive
    Westerly, Rhode Island 02891-3701


From: Jcarnick@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    The Clinton Administration's Justice Dept. started an attack on 
Microsoft and continued it largely because Microsoft failed to pay 
off the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is 1,000 x more 
corrupt and dangerous than Microsoft.
    Drop the persecution of Bill Gates. Look into former Clinton 
Administration and current Democratic operatives.
    John Carnick


From: Neil H. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is too much punishment for Microsoft. This is a 
world of competition, and because of it we have the software and 
hardware that we do today.
    Perhaps Microsoft has used some less than perfect marketing 
methods, but what is clear is that they do provide reasonably priced 
excellent software. To make them split their software applications 
would hurt the consumer.
    I urge you to complete the agreed upon settlement and don't 
deter Microsoft from continuing to produce the software we all use 
every day.


From: zevy yanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:44am
Subject: Settlement
    As a tax payer I believe the attack on Microsoft was instigated 
by competitors like Sun, Oracle, AOL, and IBM and not by consumers 
like me. We have enjoyed the benefit of great software products and 
innovations for our PCs that would have never been possible with 
multiple operating system standards.
    I truly believe the settlement agreed upon the DOJ and Microsoft 
is a fair one and will let Microsoft to continue to innovate in a 
way that benefits consumers in the US and worldwide.


From: Mark Clifton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to send you my thoughts and comments regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. I think it is fair and reasonable and should 
stand as is...it is time to move on and get this economy back on 
track. Continuing to focus on this case has no value and just 
creates more uncertainty and unrest. It1s time for politics to move 
aside and let1s get this country going again.


From: Lee Sherrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:01 am
    To whom this may concern:
    Or to whomever may really give a shit about what the little guy 
    Over the past year or so that this trial has been going on. I 
have been periodically watching just what was going on. In some 
cases, I would have to catch up on certain issues. After reviewing 
most of the events that have been forced upon the American public 
throughout the whole trial process. I have analyzed many of the 
things that have been changing throughout the US and it has put me 
into a state of fear. Not fear for my life or bodily harm, instead 
it is a fear of the little guys financial futures. Let's face it! 
The computer age is here to stay, and in order for the people of 
this country are to ever move forward in their lives, in a financial 
capacity, we are no, we must have computer abilities and be to move 
forward in the world of computing.
    Before this thing with OUR government suing Microsoft for being 
unfair in some of their practices of doing business. The god damned, 
selfish, greedy, son-a-bitches that were approached by and paid off 
by the other competitors and some that were not competitors just the 
heads of billion-dollar corporations that disliked the way that Bill 
Gates made his fortune. The ones who did not work to make their 
fortunes, rather inherited them. The elite ``Good-Ol'-Boys'' club. 
Now I know what I am saying from this point on will be looked at as 
though I am a nut! All I have to say about that is, PROVE ME WRONG!!
    Most intelligent people know of, or have heard of, or personally 
know of the very thing that I am speaking of. Most the elite ``Good-
Ol'-Boys'' club either know or sat

[[Page 25046]]

down and figured out a plan to demolish the DOT COMS of America. 
They knew that most of them were on shaky ground with means to their 
financial stability. Knowing full well that all they had to do was 
shake the ground under the DOT COMS and they would crumble. Hell I 
could see that. Several years ago, I had even mentioned to a friend 
of mine that was in charge of operations within a DOT COM company 
that his company had better stick a little more of their money into 
the more stable investments out there or they were going to 
collapse. I told him that ``you can't balance a bowling ball on a 
stick forever, something has to go.
    This is only the first part a very large puzzle. Now you take 
and put that part of the large puzzle down and no one sees a 
picture. So, you move on to the other parts of the picture. The part 
of the picture is a large part, but not the main part. The main part 
is in a simple question. WHY? Why did the US government's so called 
``Justice Department'' go after a relatively medium size company (In 
the eyes of the multi-billion dollar companies.) instead of the 
other larger multi-billion dollar companies out there that are doing 
exactly what the ``Justice Department'' is claiming that Microsoft 
was in the middle of? There are quite a huge number of them out 
there. Take for instance the oil companies, any one of them will do. 
Price gouging the consumers, creating a FALSE oil crisis in order to 
generate overly abundant profits for a product that is technically 
given to them by the government. The property that is acquired by 
the oil companies are sold to the companies for a very, very 
ridiculously low price. (I know for a fact, because I tried, that 
the government will not sell me or my friends large government-owned 
tracts of land for the price that the oil companies paid!) One fine 
note of interest is that most of these purchases and ``gifts'' of 
properties (land) were released to the oil companies during 
Republican Administrations. Stop and think whom was in office when 
our ``so-called'' oil shortage happened in the `70's. Look and see 
that in the 80's all of the land that changed hands and the 
countries that were developed by the US tax dollars. Check out just 
what companies did then and do now either control or have 
controlling interest in most of the oil rich countries. Take a look 
at just what is happening now with our present admin in charge. 
There has been a fight for decades to keep the oil companies out of 
the Alaskan Wilderness. The oil companies had a relatively small 
parcel of land up there, but during the Regan and Bush (The older 
Bush) admins the oil companies kept on building their huge damned 
    Now this Bush admin suddenly came up with the statement that 
it's for a stronger America and said that he does not care what is 
thought about it, that the agencies that have been fighting legally 
to keep the oil companies out of the pristine wilderness areas are 
all wrong. Then had congress quickly pass a bill allowing the oil 
companies in there, knowing that it will take years to fight it in 
the courts. By then it will be too late. The oil up there WILL be 
produced! I guess it's no big surprise, after all he's an oil man 
from an oil state as well as his dad. It makes you wonder why the 
huge oil companies are not being looked at very close. Hhmmm I 
    Another group of huge multi-billion dollar (in some cases multi-
trillion dollar) companies that have not been looked at are the 
Pharmaceutical companies. They have clearly and absolutely done all 
of the things that Microsoft is charged with and then some. Stopping 
research on non-chemical oriented drugs such as plants that they 
could not control the patents on or keep other companies from 
developing. Buying off the FDA to keep other smaller Pharmaceutical 
companies from developing drugs that would and did work but could 
not get the FDA to pass the drugs for consumer use until the larger 
companies could buy off the smaller companies and control the 
patent. They would then take those newly patented drugs and shelf 
them until exorbitant profits could be pulled out of the products.
    They have developed drugs that are bad for the consumers and 
promoted them as safe and developing other drugs to compensate for 
the damage the other drugs had created, when the whole time they had 
shelved or thrown out drugs that were more effective and safer for 
the consumer but were more costly to make or the products used to 
make the drugs can not be controlled by the Pharmaceutical 
companies. A very good example of this is in the cancer medicines. 
One in particular, the medicine used in Chemotherapy, RAT POISIN! 
There is several medicines outside the US which have been developed 
and has been tested and has been working on thousands of patients 
for years with tremendous results. In most of the cases the results 
are far, far better. These medicines will not be let into the US to 
help save the American consumers from the other medicines out there 
because the Pharmaceutically controlled FDA will not let them pass 
the ``so called'' stringent testing the FDA requires and thus 
keeping them out of the country. If that can not be seen as 
restricting trade and stifling competition and controlling the 
marketplace then the English language had better get a new 
dictionary started, `cause we are going to have to learn a brand new 
    I have not even been able to hit the Iceberg let alone see 
what's underneath it! This trumped up, half-baked, jerk-off charges 
that out fucking government representatives have thrown out to the 
American public and have expelled millions of dollars of our hard 
earned tax dollars, given to a bunch of has-been over-the-hill 
pretend lawyers whom if you were to ask them directly if they even 
had a mild clue of just what the American public really wanted or 
needed, you know the answer would be ``Duh!''
    They need to take a long, hard look at the other companies out 
there that are doing the complaining against Microsoft. Oh my god 
what do you think they would find! Most of those companies are 
really into the bad stuff that they are accusing Microsoft of. But 
that will never happen, as we all know. IBM is one of the accusers. 
If the truth could ever be known they are just trying to get back at 
Gates for making them look like a bunch of dopes. Gates is not 
considered one of the ``Good Ol' Boys'', IBM is.
    The government needs to stop all of the bullshit they are doing 
to Microsoft. Just finish with the ``hand-slap'' and move onto the 
other companies out there that are REALLY working against the 
American consumer, that are REALLY grossly committing consumer trade 
issues, that are REALLY and truly not doing the American consumer 
and the country as a whole. If you were to put all of the charges 
that are brought up against Microsoft and multiply them by fifty 
that figure would only be a portion of the charges that could be 
brought against the other companies that I have previously spoke of.
    If the government is going to really work for the American 
consumers then they need to drop the crap with Microsoft and look at 
those other companies. They would be doing such an extreme service 
for American that it would take decades after it was all over to 
actually figure out just what was done and find out just how great 
of a country the US had become. Well I think that it will turn out 
to be just a pipe dream. The people in charge of this whole mess are 
Republicans and when they listen they can not heard words, they only 
hear the shuffling sound that money makes. The thought of actual 
justice will never come about. With everyone that is in the majority 
in our government has a new phrase written above the scratched out 
version that was on the United States Constitution. It now read, 
``By the people for the people, as long as they are rich ... etc. 
    Written by


From: Wetherhold,Kent W.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This fraudulent antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft must come to 
a close immediately. This is nothing more than a leftover Clinton 
administration attack upon one of America's greatest entrepreneurs. 
Please do what is right and put an end this atrocity.
    Kent Wetherhold +


From: Randy Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want this settled and put behind us. Microsoft is a good 
company and what you have done has hurt our country's economy!
    I agree that a monopoly is bad but you haven't proven where any 
consumer has been hurt. I think this whole action was dictated by 
companies who can't compete on their own product's merit.
    Randy Neal


From: LuigiShort@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    Dept. of Justice:
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to voice my opinion on the current ongoing case 
against Microsoft. It seems that the case goes on and on, driven by 
companies and their lobbyists that are

[[Page 25047]]

more interested in deriving an income from the suit rather than 
buckling down, working hard and becoming a true competitor. Also 
some States see a ruling against Microsoft as a cash cow and help 
keep the case ongoing to try and reap benefits for themselves with 
no concern for the effect it has on both the U.S. economy and the 
State of Washington. The people who keep this case going never seem 
to bring up all the good that Microsoft, Gates and many employees do 
for education and charitable needs in this country plus the tax 
revenues derived for the U.S. and Washington.
    Al Short
    Bainbridge Is. WA


From: Ralph C. Whaley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:44am
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
    The right to property is an inalienable right. Microsoft 
Corporation including it's owners, the shareholders, have the 
absolute right to the property created in the context of the 
company. The right to property includes the absolute right to 
determine the conditions of sale and use of that property. Property 
rights include setting any price for any product at any time to any 
prospective buyer with any conditions of use of the product the 
seller sets. The prospective buyer is free to accept or reject the 
terms of sale and suffers no violations of his own rights when 
confronted with the seller's conditions.
    The anti-trust laws impose rules of use and sale of property 
under threat of government force. The government's responsibility is 
the protection of rights not their violation. These laws are 
violations of property rights and should be repealed.
    Ralph C. Whaley MD
    460 S. 5th St.
    Barron, WI 54812-1509
    Phone: 715-537-3614


From: Tom.DaSilva@gidi.it@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    For inclusion in the public record: Microsoft has gained its 
position through free trade but, the competition has resorted to 
government intervention. All that the government does it does by 
force. All the government has it has taken by force. ``The simpering 
rotter who whines that he sees no difference between the power of 
the dollar and the power of the whip ought to learn the difference 
on his hide''--Ayn Rand. Antitrust creates not a level playing field 
but a crime scene. The department of Justice owes Microsoft a 
conspicuous apology post haste.
    Thomas da Silva


From: hglee@hglee.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am of the opinion that the so-called ``trial'' of Microsoft is 
an abomination in a country that represents itself to be founded on 
the princicples of individual rights. Microsoft has done more to 
advance the personal computer age than any other ten companies 
combined. The premise that Microsoft achieved these great heights 
through ``coercion'' is farcical. Take a look around the market 
today, and you will find that the majority of products are designed 
for the Microsoft platform because the company is successful, not 
because they were complled to at the point of a gun--only the 
imperial federal government possesses that particular methodology.
    If you are truly concerned with public comment and the ``public 
interest,'' then as a member of the public I emplore you to leave 
well enough alone. There is no calculating the harm that you have 
already done this company (and how much this has ``cost the American 
consumer''). Back off now, and let Microsoft's productive genius go 
unmolested unless and until it commits a bona fide crime of some 
    Please keep in mind that the only legitimate function for a 
government is to protect its citizens from force or fraud; Microsoft 
has committed neither. If you want to truly pursue a prosecution 
that will be a ``victory for consumers everywhere,'' then close this 
matter and let Microsoft continue to improve the lives of countless 
individuals--programmers, stockholders, innovators, businessmen, and 
especially consumers.
    If the DoJ is truly interested in ``settling'' this case 
properly, I submit that the only proper way to do that is to quit 
the prosecution, to apologize profusely and publicly, and to pay 
restitution for the unnecessary for waste of this company's time 
over the last two years. Only then can the DoJ begin to earn the 
title of ``Department of Justice.''
    H.G. Lee,
    Atlanta, GA


From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: I feel very strongly that the DOJ should settle the 
Microsoft case as it's currently proposes. It is fair for both 
    Jeff Graber


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement is fair to all parties concerned 
and that the dragging out of this case must be considered unfair to 
the majority of parties concerned. Microsoft has acted in an 
honorable manner. Please act quickly to end this.
    What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been 


From: Drlik, Scott
To: `Microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to implement the settlement reached in the Microsoft 
case. Further litigation would be counterproductive. Already, 
millions of dollars have been spent to reach a decision that has 
been deemed acceptable by millions of individuals.
    As a user of the technology being judged, I was readily able to 
choose between providers. In fact, I am of the opinion that the 
lawsuit lacked initial merit. Those millions of dollars spent on 
this case could very well have been allocated to more needy causes; 
e.g., education, homelessness, poverty.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Francis Scott Drlik


From: Andrew Sisolak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:44pm


From: Rollin45@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long time PC user, and resident of Utah ( one of the states 
whining about the settlement) I would just like to say that Novell 
at one time dominated the networking/desktop environment. The main 
reason they lost this position is their lack of focus and 
concentration , not some alleged ``unfair'' tactics on the part of 
    The local politicians and power structure see this trial as a 
way to show their ``dedication'' in defending their constituents. 
The fact that the local ``bull got gored'' does not constitute 
unfair business practice. If Novell had paid attention to the market 
place, and made their core product better it would still be number 
one in terms of market share. Microsoft is a relentless competitor, 
and one must pay attention to the game if one wishes to win.
    best regards
    steve mackelprang
    west jordan, utah


From: Steven Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the gov't (Justice Department) should leave 
Microsoft alone. The employees of Microsoft should be free to 
innovate and

[[Page 25048]]

sell their innovations on the free market. It is a basic requirement 
of man that he needs to be free. I don't see how the gov't should 
treat the individuals that make up Microsoft any different than 
anybody else. The Justice Department should try cracking down on 
computer piracy. That is the gov't should be going after the 
criminals those that initiate the use of physical force in it's 
different forms. The bottom line is that Microsoft has a right to 
earn as big of a profit as it can. Microsoft should be set free.
    Steven Henderson
    Van Buren, Michigan


From: Gary Olson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally feel the Microsoft settlement is fair. I think the 
States that are not agreeing to it are looking for some easy money 
and are not really interested in fair competition. I think that 
other companies could and will invent software that is better than 
Microsoft's and when they do there will be a market for it. People 
will use the software that is best for their home or business 
    Thank You.
    Gary Olson
    S78 W26750 Hillview Drive
    Mukwonago, WI 53149


From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please keep me informed. I am very concerned about the health of 
the software industry should an inappropriate settlement with 
Microsoft be reached.
    Morley Chalmers
    for the 7 Office team


From: David E Provencher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the settlement that was agreed upon should 
be accepted, and this case closed. This has gone on long 
    David E Provencher


From: PABrittain@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:11am
Subject: Re: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    To whom it may concern,
    You may forward the letter to Microsoft that has my name on it. 
I agree strongly with your letter.
    Pat Brittain


From: N. Kydonieus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that this is another instance of the US government 
penalizing the best in men to prop up the lesser men that cannot 
compete effectively. To do this the US government has to initiate 
force which is a destructive activity. The American and the global 
economy has been paying for this travesty of injustice. In order to 
leave the caves of barbarism and enter civilized existence, we have 
to ban the initiation of force, not institutionalize it.


From: Ron Unangst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a user of Microsoft products for years and have 
always been satisfied with their products. I urge you to settle this 
and let the this country get on with the business at hand. Overall I 
am very upset with the governments handling of the Microsoft case in 
the first place. Look around, what about the merger with Warner and 
AOL? Microsoft and Intel have done more to take this country forward 
with the PC than anyone. Enough is enough. Settle and move onward. 
The only ones complaining now are MS competitors............
    Tunney Act
    Roland Z. Unangst


From: Macktsplace@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to us that the Justice Department is coming very near 
to destroying one of our greatest American companies. Microsoft 
should be left entirely free to invent and innovate to the limits of 
their capabilities. They should not be forced to share their 
proprietary information with their competitors. Our recession 
started with the opening of the ``Let's get Microsoft.'' 
governmental mind set and action. In athletics we do not force the 
lead runner or team to slow down or score less for their 
competitor's benefit!
    For your information, we own Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Dell, 
Oracle, Texas Instruments, AOL and Gateway stock. We urge you to 
discontinue and put an end to this lawsuit in a timely fashion for 
the sake not only of most American consumers, but for the economic 
welfare of our country as well.
    Alexander M. Thomson and
    Florence W. Thomson (Mrs. Alexander M. Thomson)


From: Creech, Robert
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years now various envious business leaders have been trying 
to convice government that Microsoft and Bill Gates are deamons. I 
know that Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison and Steve Case are more 
charismatic and come across as nice guys but, in my opinion, they 
are simply vary hard nosed and egotistical business men. The reason 
that Microsoft has cornered the market on operatong systems has to 
do with great marketing more than it does nasty business practices. 
Everyone knows that Apple had a better system so why didn't they 
prevail? I'll tell you why--lousy marketing. The same exact thing 
happened when the VHS standard beat out the Beta standard for VCR's. 
Beta was much better but they lost out. And the other key reason 
that Microsoft has done so well is because they established sorely 
    Any company that establishes needed standards will have an 
advantage. Even though IBM had a very competitive operating system, 
nobody was interested. Why? Partly because IBM was out of style at 
that time. But also because tha last thing we need in business is 
another complicated piece of software to integrate--who needs it?
    How can you hammer away at Microsoft when any number of other 
companies enjoy a huge market share in their product line? Please, 
let's move on to things that are really important to people. I would 
love to see the AG in Massachusetts spend his efforts making sure 
that the executives at Polaroid do not squander my pension fund--
something that thousands of us desparately need to stay healthy. 
This AG is really using his office to run for Governor--just like 
the previous AG did. Microsoft has done the country and the world a 
huge service and should not be raked over the coals for being better 
at the software business and their rivals.
    Bob Creech
    Applications Systems Manager
    TAC Worldwide Companies
    (617) 969-3100 x294


From: EVERGPH@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:43am
Subject: microsoft
    I don't think further litigation is necessary. I didn't feel the 
government should have gotten involved in this situation to begin 
with. The only ones benefiting from all this litigation are the 
attorneys as usual.
    j roth


From: Paula Rabel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Settlement
    Please just settle this case. We have never agreed with it to 
begin with and would like the litigation to be settled now.
    Bob & Paula Rabel


From: jereeves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe Microsoft's benefits to consumers far outweigh any 
costs. We urge you to please settle this case as soon as possible.
    Jerry & Corinne Reeves

[[Page 25049]]

    12277 Arrow Point Drive NE
    Bainbridge Island WA 98110


From: geekfest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's unbelievable that after Microsoft has been found guilty in 
two courts the Department of Justice would accept a settlement 
agreement that was earlier presented and rejected. This case sets a 
terrible precedent. Microsoft has been convicted and the Department 
of Justice has decided to let Microsoft determine its own 
punishment. I'm not aware of any other case in which the guilty 
party was permitted to write its own settlement agreement.
    This approach to resolution generates more problems than it 
solves. Where is the incentive to obey the law? Microsoft gets to 
keep its illegally acquired gains. Its competitor's position in the 
market has been destroyed. It has been found guilty in two courts 
and will now walk away in better business position than it was 
before it broke the law. Based on this pattern will Microsoft choose 
to break the law in the future? Will other corporations do the same? 
The precedent established by this settlement agreement will not only 
reward Microsoft for deciding to break the law, it will penalize 
those companies that choose to obey it, and encourage other 
companies faced with similar competitive problems to ignore the law 
in the formulation of their solutions. The consumer will be harmed 
in the future simply because the threat of future litigation by the 
government will be meaningless. Microsoft has already been through 
litigation, been found guilty, and has been allowed to keep 
everything they acquired by violating the law.
    Without punitive damages that make violation of the law an 
ineffective approach to solving business competitive problems 
corporations will use illegal methods. The laws intended to protect 
the market and consumers will get pushed aside by illegally 
maintained monopolies. Any settlement at the least must have 
punitive monetary damages that remove any monetary gain achieved by 
choosing to violate the law. In addition any settlement of a 
corporation convicted of illegally maintaining its monopoly must 
include either structural changes in the corporation that prohibit 
future violations, or a consent agreement that has significant 
predetermined fines and penalties that can be applied by government 
regulators (or in this case the oversight committee). The fines and 
penalties must be large enough to effectively stop illegal behavior 
before the behavior can damage the marketplace and consumers and 
they must be applied quickly enough to stop damage to the 
marketplace and consumers. If Microsoft feels the committee 
assessment is inappropriate let it go to court to get its money 
back. Since Microsoft is a repeat offender (they violated their 
original consent agreement and have been convicted of illegally 
maintaining their monopoly) it's not unreasonable to defend against 
the possibility that they may continue to exhibit illegal behavior 
in the future.
    Since any agreement will have different possible interpretations 
the only effective agreement will be one in which the oversight 
committee has enforcement powers. It will force Microsoft to either 
argue their interpretation of the agreement with the committee 
chosen to represent the public interest or return to court for a 
formal determination. The proposed consent agreement does nothing to 
discourage illegal behavior by Microsoft and sets a precedent that 
will harm consumers and the market in the future. I urge the court 
to reject this proposed settlement as inadequate protection for 
consumers and force a more punitive settlement or conclusion to this 
case that will send a clear message that laws that prevent the 
illegal maintenance of a monopoly will be strictly enforced. If the 
court fails to send this message then the laws may as well be 
repealed for all the good they will do.
    Thank you for reviewing this comment.
    John K. Stevens
    P.O. Box 634
    Bath, OH
    (330) 701-6458


From: ABCOB7@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to express my views on the subject settlement.
    Go with the Court of Appeals ruling. This case should not be 
dragged out any longer.
    Arthur W. Jacob
    7860 Palmer Rd.
    Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068


From: Leslie Ishimi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:03am
Subject: Thanks for asking.
    Haven't been following the settlement closely. But Thanks for 
asking. Haven't been following the settlement closely. But generally 
I think Bill, Microsoft, and the American public got screwed by 
somebody who doesn't get the big picture. What you've done has 
changed the world, daily, for the better, for the last how-many 
years. Somebody ought to be sucking your toe cheese and saying thank 
you minute-by-minute. Sorry for the setbacks. They are inevitable 
when you do something well. And with even a small understanding of 
reality I have come to accept that even if you're able to clear one 
don't-get-it person out of the way, there's always another right 
behind. So tread undaunted as best you can--you are STILL performing 
an incredibly valuable service to the planet as you chart an 
extremely difficult journey for all of us. The way we earn a living 
will continue to change which affects the global economy which, 
unfortunately, still runs the world. I'm sure as the world shakes 
out the wrinkles we will all face more circumstances we don't know 
what to do with at first, but we made it before and we'll just keep 
working our way through the development of our minds and instincts. 
Oh, and remember the words on Henry Miller's tombstone: I outlasted 
the bastards! lol


From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is in the public interest, considering the aftermath 
of September 11th, to reach a speedy conclusion to the Microsoft 
case. Prolonged litigation would only benefit the lawyers, a few 
wealthy competitors and special interest groups, and serve to stifle 
    Frank J. Brown


From: Presswalla@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my strong view that the current settlement be accepted so 
that the industry can go forward without being ensnared further in 
    Hoshang Presswalla, P.E., S.E.
    P.E., Inc.


From: batson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust `Comment'
    What is the closing date to file a COMMENT?


From: Mho8@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please settle this matter soon so the economy can move forward.
    Michael Ho


From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that settlement of the Microsoft case is in the public 
interest. Prolonging this litigation, particularly in the midst of 
uncertain economic times, would benefit only lawyers and a few 
wealthy competitors, and serve to stifle innovation. This case has 
dragged out long enough.
    Yours truly,
    Miriam E. Brown


From: Cindy(038)Keith Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

[[Page 25050]]

    I am writing to express my support of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I think the case never should have been brought in the 
first place, and in has gone on for too long. Microsoft has made 
many concessions in this proposed settlement that I believe are very 
fair and address the concerns brought during the court battle.
    Please don't let Microsoft's competitors continue to use the 
U.S. government in their battle to destroy Microsoft.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Cynthia A. Hansen
    P.O. Box 146
    Snohomish, WA 98291


From: Mike Ward
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I represent a computer technology training company, and it is 
our business to remain on the leading edge of information technology 
(IT) to provide necessary IT education to America's corporations. 
Part of my job is to stay abreast of the rapid changes that take 
place in the IT industry every day, so that we can be assured we're 
offering instruction in the latest and most widely-used software 
    By any measure, Microsoft is a leader in the software industry. 
But from my experience with Microsoft as a company, they earn that 
leadership position every day as fierce competitors and extremely 
good innovators that constantly seek out the needs and feedback of 
their customers. Their research and development budget is nearly $8 
billion per year, and I believe, second to none. That investment 
alone shows their commitment to technical innovations that benefit 
us all.
    As I mentioned, I come across industry information on a daily 
basis that confirms that competition is alive and well for Microsoft 
products. Two obvious examples are the proliferation of open-source 
Linux and Sun's consideration to freely distribute their StarOffice 
suite. And yet, consumers continue to pay for Microsoft's products 
because they are superior at meeting the needs of the market 
    Please put an end to the litigation, and let the software 
industry seek its own level of healthy competition.
    Mike Ward
    VP, Technology Services
    Phone: (302) 658-3018, ext.134
    Web : http://www.onlc.com/> http://www.onlc.com
    Email : mailto:mike@onlc.com> mike@onlc.com


From: James Ashberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement does nothing except expand Microsft's 
monopoly into the education market where Apple and others still have 
significant claim. By allowing Microsoft to infiltrate these markets 
through donations, whilst seeming on the surface to be a good will 
gesture, is nothing but a mass infestation of Windows based machines 
into the eduation sector.
    In addition, the figure Microsoft have claimed it will spend 
will be greatly smaller, as software's retail value is far higher 
than the actual financial impact it will have on Microsoft. 
Microsoft should be made to donate the cash to the education 
agencies within the United States, and the cash should be used at 
the discretion of the schools and areas involved. This way schools 
will benefit, have freedom of choice, and Microsoft is made to pay. 
Allowing Microsoft's proposed settlement to go through is not only 
folly, but will make a mockery of the US and the US justice system.
    James Ashberry
    Internet Developer
    United Kingdom


From: jfeege@valdeseweavers.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
    We would like to express our viewpoint on the Microsoft case. We 
believe that the settlement reached with the Federal Government and 
the nine states was a reasonable settlement and that it is not in 
the best interest of the Unites States economy to prolong the 
litigation. The settlement reached is in the best interest of all 
concerned and should be imposed on the remaining states that did not 
accept the settlement. In short--lets put an end to the endless and 
counterproductive litigation and allow the free enterprise market to 
    Joe Feege
    154 S. Center St.
    Hickory, NC 28602


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the suit against Microsoft was harmful to the US 
economy in far greater proportion to any benefit to the public (as 
opposed to Microsofts competitors) that was realized. That's not 
even considering the taxpayer funds spent. It's time to end it and 
get on to other things. Get the settlement completed now, and see 
that all parties, and potential parties are included.
    Dr. Jack D. Rowe


From: GDPESQ@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The difficulties associated with young or nascent but exploding 
businesses, particularly in the field of communications where there 
continues an ever changing, expanding marketplace of interrelated 
products and services such that no ``snapshot'' of a ``market'' can 
sustain the test of short duration, cannot be over-estimated. And 
attempting to put a noose of control around a growth that will not 
be contained, even in a constructive way, may be more of a restraint 
of trade than a protection of the consumer, even competition. We 
need to enable the establishment of a stable market, before we seek 
so drastically to control its abuse, something only the marketplace 
can do, assisted by the normal policing for fraud and the like. For, 
if we don't, we will only short-circuit the progress in progress as 
evidenced by the growing pains brought on by new discovery and 
development. Desk-top operating platforms have been outgrown by the 
introduction and proliferation of wireless and digital technologies 
which now enable a portion of the desktop to be carried with an 
individual, no matter what his or her interest is, thereby making 
the market for desk-tops something hardly exclusive, which says a 
great deal about operating systems, the only apparent monopoly 
Microsoft had, and certainly, by developments since, no longer has. 
Look at what happened to Compact in view of the Dell approach. Given 
the path of technology, if its progress is not squeezed by 
regulatory cut off, the Microsoft advantage will be lost if it does 
not continue to address innovation and improvement of which its 
competitors are quick to take advantage. Any solution harming 
Microsoft's ability to provide better products and services to the 
communicative consumer, even at the expense of the competition, is 
no foul so long as the market remains as diverse as it is with the 
players as plentiful as they are at numerous levels which prevents 
the monopoly of only a segment, if indeed even that can be defined 
right now.
    Be careful that you don't short-circuit our prosperity in your 
endeavor to protect a ``competition'' which may have already 
succumbed to technological innovation. If the settlement can be read 
to agree with the foregoing, we think it a good agreement.
    A victim of the abuse of competition


From: Dwayne Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    My perception is that the settlement between the United States 
Department of Justice and nine states is in the public interest. The 
settlement seems reasonable and fair to all parties. More litigation 
to satisfy some of Microsoft's wealthy competitors is not in the 
public interest.
    Dwayne Jennings
    5105 Briarwood Cove
    Milan, TN 38358


From: GRADY Tim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    After reading on the proposed legal settlement with Microsoft, I 
believe the proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals 
of a proper remedy: halting

[[Page 25051]]

the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and 
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Microsoft was proven to have broken the law, which makes them 
criminals. They should be treated as such. My career is in 
information technology and I have witnessed first hand what damage a 
company like Microsoft, allowed to perform business as it had, can 
do to stifle innovation and creativity that benefit us all.
    I would like to suggest creating remedies that will be clear, 
lasting and permanent. Microsoft should not be given wormholes to 
get past any actions taken against them and I don't believe that 
Microsoft giving away billions of dollars in software to 
underprivileged schools is a good idea as that reinforces some of 
it's tactics that are practiced today.
    Timothy M. Grady


From: Rons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    If Ma Bell was still the only phone company, would we have phone 
innovations like caller ID or cellular and pay only 5 cents a 
minute? If Microsoft was just another software company, think what 
innovations in software we might be using today.
    Microsoft does not innovate they dictate. Microsoft is a 
tyrannical monopoly that runs roughshod over the computer industry. 
Microsoft has shown contempt towards potential competitors and 
disregard for the rulings of the US Department of Justice.
    Microsoft needs a timeout until they learn to play well with 
    Ron Schultz ? President
    Space Port User Group
    408 Sundown Ave.
    Alamogordo, NM 88310


From: Harvey J Chiat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please make every effort to settle the Microsoft case per the 
comprehensive agreement reached between Microsoft and federal 
government. It is in the best interest of the internet users that 
the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling should 
stand and the case should be closed. I am in complete disagreement 
with the stand taken by the Minnesota Attorney General and the 
Attorneys General of the eight other states that oppose the 
settlement reached.
    Harvey Chiat
    3812 Drew Ave S
    Minneapolis MN 55410


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:02am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let's settle with micosoft and stop wasting time.


From: Wayne Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:05am
Subject: I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish 
the USA would settle it !
    I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish the 
USA would settle it !


From: Jay Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:07am
Subject: Lawsuit
    I am a Professional Engineer and I use the full slate of 
Microsoft products at work and at home. I enjoy using their products 
and I used Internet Explorer. I like the ability to use products 
that work well together. I have been using PC's since 1984 and know 
how ``lock ups'' cause problems by conflicts. I have never had 
problems with Microsoft products, just other applications that 
typically caused the conflicts.
    I do not believe in the US government suing Microsoft. The 
problems with our stock market began with the announcement of the 
first suit. I would prefer that the states and the government drop 
the lawsuits.
    The average person in the lawsuit gets nothing back, the 
attorneys get all the money. Please drop the action against 
    Jay Davis
    210 E. Weber Circle
    Lake Charles, LA 70611


From: Jereza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my comments in favor of the proposed 
settlement. I have read through terms of the settlement and feel it 
is fair resolution of the dispute, and provides sufficient ongoing 
monitoring of Microsoft practices in the future. I realize that 
there are competitive interests to whom no settlement would ever be 
satisfactory, as long Microsoft continues to be in business at all, 
and we must take this into account when listening to these 
opposition voices. I ask that the settlement be accepted, because it 
is in the best public interest to do so.
    Thank you,
    Julie Kirk


From: David Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government's case against Microsoft, well-intentioned as it 
may have been, has been hurting the American economy for far too 
long. The issues the case intended to address are already moot. 
(Laws intended to prevent excesses a century or more ago are not 
working in the current economic environment.)
    While Microsoft may have gone too far in trying to protect its 
interests, the market itself is self-correcting. It is also too 
self-interested to allow Mr. Gates and company to impose his will on 
millions of users who may or may not choose to use Microsoft's 
    The only way Microsoft can stay ahead in this highly competitive 
environment is by developing excellent products. At this point the 
government is impeding Microsoft in this effort by draining so much 
of Microsoft's resources to fighting the legal battle. In this case, 
if the government would just allow the market to function, everybody 
would benefit.
    David Hicks


From: Glenda Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I feel as little as possible damage should be done to Microsoft. 
I work at a software company and we program for Windows. Our 
developers are able to product top quality software because they are 
working in this one venue rather than for multiple operating 
systems. We need fewer tools for development and are able to offer 
great affordability because of our ability to focus on Windows.
    Microsoft has been portrayed as the ``bad guy'' when they simply 
were more effective than their competitors in a free market system. 
I can't begin to estimate the money that has been saved by the 
American consumer as a result of Microsoft's success.
    Please do not punish this remarkable company and it's 
shareholders any more than has already been done.
    Their competitors hope only to accomplish using the courts what 
they could not in the free market.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Glenda K. Hill
    Greeley, CO


From: Deanna Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to pass along my comments on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Inc. I have worked with one computer system or another for 
the past 20+ years and have found Microsoft to be user friendly and 
first class in product quality. To continue legal action beyond the 
current settlement proposal is an abuse of the judicial system by 
parties wishing to inflict major damage to a capital enterprise. 
History has shown the damage inflicted to IBM seriously curtailed 
their ability to bring new and innovative products to the 
marketplace during the years of litigation by the government. IBM 
too was a first class and quality product prior to and after the 
long term litigation by DOJ. I realize the circumstances are 
different, and today is not the same business environment as the 60s 
and 70s. But once a decision is rendered and settlement fair and 
equitable, resolution in a speedy and decisive manner is best for 
everyone involved.
    Let's finish the job and go one with other business. Beating a 
dead horse wastes tax payers money and abuses our judicial

[[Page 25052]]

system. MS was caught wrongdoing. Come to a settlement that can be 
found agreeable for all parties and let life continue on.


From: R J Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would hope that this is the end to this antitrust suit for all 
parties concerned.I feel that a lot of time and a lot of the 
taxpayers money has been spent unwisely supporting this antitrust 
suit to begin with.I also feel that the Clinton Administration 
brought this suit only to repay favors to other corporations since 
their products didn't measure up to what we the public want,so this 
was their way of trying slow Microsoft Corporation so they could 
regain some market share.
    I also feel the Clinton Administration has hurt not only 
Microsoft Corporation but the public at large for the tax revenues 
lost just to bring this suit,and anyone that has a 401k account has 
been affected.
    In closing I would like to comment on the nine states in this 
suit.I don't see that they should be even considered in this 
    Sincerely yours
    Robert Burns


From: Eldon Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:33am
Subject: court settlement
    Microsoft has kept its products at a reasonable price from the 
very beginning. Their products have been very useful to the home 
user. As usual the court system drags things out endlessly. Leave 
them alone to do their thing.
    Eldon Erickson
    650 SW Lookout Drive
    Corvallis, OR 97333


From: Duncan D McGregor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that this case has been settled in court. 
Microsoft has been penalized and that should be enough. This company 
has made the use of computers available to almost anyone for a very 
reasonable software cost. I strongly recommend that this case be 
settled on the basis of the courts findings.
    Duncan D. McGregor
    313 Curtis Road
    Chesterfield, SC 29709


From: Rjdar12@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:43am
Subject: Continued law suits
    Lets continue with the free enterprise system in our USA. Finish 
up with this agreed on settlement with Microsoft.
    Ralph Darnell,
    1013 Sudan Dr.,
    Corpus Cristi, TX.


From: charles stengel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:43am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Isn't it about time you settle with microsoft on the basis 
established by the courts. lawyers keep coming up with new ways to 
make a buck for themselves.
    C.A. Stengel.


From: messmedia@loop.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:51am
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be left alone. Microsoft has not forced anyone 
to do anything. Microsoft offers a product. One may buy it or not 
buy it. If not, other computers (Apple, for example) and operating 
systems (OSX and Linux, among others) are available. Even if one 
buys Microsoft, one can install browsers other than IE, such as 
Opera, iCab, and Mozilla.
    There is no problem from Microsoft. The problem is envy. Those 
who would deny Microsoft its success, should examine their own 
    The principle is: Are force, threats of force, or fraud being 
used by Microsoft? These are the only means available to violate our 
rights against our wills. I see no evidence of tort or crime.
    Get over it.


From: SMOJEV@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Officials:
    Please settle the lawsuit as negotiated with Microsoft. We, the 
people, are tired of all the litigation that goes on in this 
country. The DOJ and the Attorneys General in the various states 
should set an example --- and not a ``litigious'' example. Enough 
all ready, you made a point and now lets get on with what makes this 
country great = free enterprise! We need to move more quickly into 
the tech age and continuous litigation against or within the tech 
industry is counter productive to a strong, vibrant economy.
    Yours truly, John E. Vallance
    PO Box 1100
    Santa Monica, CA 90406-1100


From: Jim Crumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:54am
Subject: M.S. SUIT
    The DOJ suit against Microsoft triggered a multi-trillion dollar 
meltdown of our economy. Doing far more damage than bin Laden. DROP 
    Jim Crumley


From: CLAASSEN@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I understand that the federal government and nine states finally 
reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the 
reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. I believe 
that the settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
    Ben Claassen
    504 486-2317


From: RLifsey357
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:59am
Subject: Lawsuit
    Dear DOJ:
    This lawsuit was ludicrous from the start, essentially a money 
grab by Microsoft want-to-be companies, and trial attorneys. I have 
experienced and can never foresee any hardship caused by Microsoft 
by being a pioneer in the technology field. Hence, the adage, ``No 
good deed in this country goes unpunished''.
    I furthermore consider the settlement under consideration more 
than generous from the accused parties.
    Thank you for consideration.
    Richard Lifsey
    Metairie, LA


From: Les Troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:03pm
Subject: settlement
    The ``settlement'' is unfair to Microsoft, but I am a practical 
man and I don't think Microsoft is likely to get a fair deal. Any 
further litigation can only hurt the consumer, the economy, our free 
enterprise system and thousands of microsoft shareholders. The only 
ones who can gain are the billionaire executives of companies who 
don't want to compete in the marketplace on the basis of merit and 
service to the consumer.


From: james.good
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:09pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I was asked to voice my opinion of this fool hardy law suit of 
Microsoft. I think my first sentence tells you. Companies should be 
allowed to compete in the market place, and not be tied by zealous 
lawyers and government officials who have no business interfering. 
The main cause of this suit to my understanding was the bundling of 
Microsoft Internet Explorer. Well, I have 2 systems with Windows 95 
and 98, and both have Explorer on them. I loaded Netscape on both 
because I like it's operations better. So, where did Microsoft force 
me to purchase and use their product over Netscape? To me, both were 
free and in one system part of my package when purchased.
    I think that the settlement should be finished, Microsoft should 
be left to provide the products and services they are known for and 
the lawyers and government should remain out of the business loop 
unless true illegal business practices are used.
    Jim Good
    Colchester, CT
    Microsoft Share Holder

[[Page 25053]]


From: Mona Chicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ and 
several states is fair, not only to the parties involved but to the 
consumers who should be given the ability to choose the best 
software to fit their individual needs.
    Mona Chicks
    14015 NE 87th Street, Redmond, WA 98052
    (425) 702-9695


From: Judibird1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this over with. The Clinton and Gore Era started 
this. I am a Consumer and on the Internet ONLY BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT. 
No one has done more for the technology and our country plus the 
consumers than Microsoft. Our Stock Market needs MSFT stability. 
Please get off our only good Stock that make the world turn. Tell 
Microsoft you are sorry and pay his Lawyer Bills. The Courts should 
beg forgiveness and the States Attorney Generals that went against 
our only Gross National Product. I hope every State that continues 
to try and get money from Microsoft gets paid back. Remember the 
golden Rule.


From: Jon M. Griffith, Assistant Principal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. It has come 
to my attention that you are considering where to focus the funds 
from the settlement. I would like to briefly explain where I would 
hope you would direct some of the settlement.
    Currently, I am the Assistant Principal/Transportation Director/
Athletic Director but before this recent job change I was District 
Computer Coordinator. With that job, I can honestly say the funding 
for technology was scarce. The School District of Spooner is a 
medium size school district in rural Northwest Wisconsin. The 
majority of the supporting community is either retired or around the 
poverty level. Unlike larger communities such as Madison or 
Milwaukee, Spooner and the surrounding smaller towns are not able to 
tap into our local industries for help. Most of the businesses are 
geared towards tourism (such as bars, restaurants and small grocery 
    In fact the 3rd largest employer in Spooner is our local grocery 
store. With this background, I would hope that any aid that you 
could funnel towards rural areas would greatly be appreciated. To 
compete with schools from larger communities we need to have similar 
resources. Grants and scholarships are basically our only option. 
Asking our voters for help is very depressing (we failed our last 5 
referendums these past 10 years). The funding would help us upgrade, 
build infrastructure and maintain the technology that we do have.
    I can give you many examples, but my point is to ask for you to 
support technology funding for rural areas such as Spooner, 
Wisconsin. Any support would greatly be appreciated.
    Thank You!
    Jon Griffith


From: Dean and Urs Ratti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:31pm
    As long-time consumers of Microsoft products, our desire is to 
see the Microsoft lawsuit settled NOW. It appears that those 
entities which are delaying the settlement are doing so for 
political reasons only, to the detriment of the consuming public and 
in turn, the overall economy. As harsh as the Court of Appeals 
ruling is, let it stand, and let us be done with the continual 
    Dean and Ursula Ratti


From: Jim Cornwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:08pm


From: John Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. I agree that settlement is good for the industry and the 
American economy.
    John Phillips


From: donescher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Further prolonging the Microsoft litigation is a drag on the 
U.S. economy and on American industry in general. We believe the 
proposed settlement is fair to the parties and just as importantly, 
the American comsumer. A continuation would appear to be counter 
productive in these dangerous economic times.
    Shirley & Don Escher


From: WaltJoy212@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. The non agreeing states case must be dismissed 
so that we can go on with the rebuilding of the economy of New York 
and the Country. The issue is greed and how the government can try 
to ruin the greatest sucess story in the history of mankind. By 
delaying the settlement of the contribution of massive computer help 
to the schools that need help the most, we delay the help to another 
year of students.
    I hope that we can count on the Federal Government to do the 
right thing and end this mess.
    Walter Steckman
    2 Tudor City Place 10HS
    New York, New York 10017


From: is
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am happy with this settlement.
    Igor Spivak


From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:50 pm
Subject: Excellent Comments
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    I'm forwarding this article (and it's link) as I feel it 
portrays the Microsoft settlement for what it really is (nothing 
more than a cleverly disguised scam)
    Yes, the article is long, but should still be read

Microsoft: Of Kids & Con Men by John Kheit

Of Kids and Con Men

    Microsoft seems to be trying to use kids and education to lull 
everyone into believing them. The hope seems to be that maybe no one 
will question that Microsoft's proposed settlement allows it to 
extend its monopoly product leverage into the educational market. It 
also seems that Microsoft would like everyone to believe that 
promising to be good monopolists under an honor system is a 
reasonable solution to anticompetitive practices. Perhaps next 
they'll suggest convicted drug dealers should be allowed to pay 
their debts to society by giving free crack to our kids, assuming of 
course they promise to not run other dealers out of the market. Give 
me a break.

[[Page 25054]]

Microsoft Settlement Jibber Jabber

    The laudable goal of helping our kids with a proposed settlement 
that Microsoft wants to direct at schools may well be a cue that 
we're being suckered. Recently, Steve Jobs, the ever effervescent 
technology leader and CEO of both Apple and Pixar, chimed in with a 
chorus of other commentators to pooh-pooh on Microsoft's scandalous 
proposal to settle for its crime of being a naughty monopoly. 
Microsoft's proposal to settle a class-action, civil, antitrust 
lawsuit with various states and private parties could have it paying 
$1.6 billion to schools, mostly by way of Microsoft software, as a 
settlement for its past misdeeds. Mr. Jobs claimed to be ``baffled'' 
by the proposal.
    Some legislators have this nasty habit of packaging together 
nonsensical laws for rhetorical and/or other less-than-righteous 
reasons. It's interesting to note that our government doesn't see 
any hypocrisy in its normal operations employing tying and other 
trust-like activities for leveraging power to force the acceptance 
of questionable laws while not allowing industry to do the same with 
products. I expect that one day soon a bright legislator will draft 
a bill that declares his home address to be tax free zone, provides 
himself with billions in disaster relief, declares himself emperor 
of the world, and adds a law saying ``you should be nice to kids.'' 
This bright legislator will do this for the same reason others have 
done it, to mask his true intentions. The hope in this sort of 
scheme seems to be that everyone will be too ashamed to vote down a 
bill that says ``you should be nice to kids'' for fear of rhetorical 
backlash. The fear of being criticized for voting against a bill 
that says ``you should be nice to kids'' can make people and 
legislators alike do stupid things like adopt laws that are 
otherwise illegitimate.
    So why am I harping on the flimflam tactics of con men, 
terrorists and politicians alike (please, I know I'm being 
redundant) in an article about Microsoft? Because a scam may be 
afoot. The reason for Mr. Jobs' and others' apparent consternation 
is if Microsoft gives its software to schools, it will incur no real 
penalty. Commentators state that approximately $840 million of the 
settlement will come by way of Microsoft software, which would 
actually cost Microsoft approximately a paltry $1 million. That's 
because making copies of its own software is essentially free for 
Microsoft. Furthermore, Apple and others fear that dumping that much 
Microsoft software into schools will shore up Microsoft's market 
position in the educational sector, where up until this point 
Microsoft has not managed to clearly dominate. Many commentators and 
Mr. Jobs have suggested Microsoft give the schools the entire 
settlement in cash. Of course, there is some degree of jibber jabber 
over the amount of cash that Microsoft should give to the 
educational sector, however, it seems that no one dares question the 
choice of market itself. That's crazy.

Only Microsoft Is Paying Attention to Relevant Markets

    The fact that Microsoft chose the educational market, alone, 
should be a red flag to any practicing antitrust attorney. Most 
antitrust attorneys know that market definition at trial is largely 
determinative of the outcome. ``Because market power is often 
inferred from market share, market definition generally determines 
the result of the case.'' Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical 
Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 469 n.15 (1992) (citing Robert 
Pitofsky, New Definitions of Relevant Market and the Assault on 
Antitrust, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1805, 1806-13 (1990)). For example, if 
Microsoft's marketplace were considered to be all software made 
anywhere for any processor, it would only hold a small percentage of 
that market. That's because most of the world's software is not made 
by Microsoft. For example, there is a lot of software in 
calculators, microwaves, cars, airplanes, missiles, telephones, 
mainframes, televisions, etc. Thus, if a court decided that the 
relevant market was all software, then it would have been very 
likely that Microsoft would not have been found to be a monopoly. On 
the other hand, if the relevant market was said to be Intel 
compatible personal computers, then Microsoft easily would be deemed 
a monopoly. You've probably heard this before, but it is important 
to note that it is not illegal, per se, to be a monopoly. However, 
once you are found to be a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse your 
monopoly power in anticompetitive ways. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2; U. S. 
v. Grinnell Corp., 86 S.Ct. 1698 (1966); Intergraph Corp. v. Intel 
Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regardless, depending 
on how the market is defined, one can pretty much predict if an 
accused company will be found to be a monopoly.

Microsoft's Solution Ignores the Victims

    With this background, it is interesting that Microsoft would 
focus on a market where it is not currently dominant rather than 
giving the damages to parties that have been more directly injured 
by its anticompetitive practices. Its main victims, supposedly, were 
other software companies stunted or driven out of business (anyone 
remember Stacker?) and consumers that have been overcharged.

Consumers Overcharged

    Some analysts posit that Microsoft overcharged individual 
consumers by as much as $150 on products over the years. Many 
consumers were fleeced and forced to pay Microsoft a license fee for 
Windows when buying a computer even when they didn't want to run 
Windows or even when they already had a valid license for Windows. 
Microsoft evinced its recompense to the consumer by raising prices 
on Windows XP significantly.

Obvious Solutions Ignored

    Certainly, there seem to be easy remedies that actually address 
and would affect Microsoft's monopoly power while providing 
compensation to both groups of victims. With regard to consumers, 
potential solutions may include: offering money to those that can 
show they were forced to buy unwanted Windows licenses, giving money 
back to OEMs (so they can lower prices on their non-Microsoft 
products), or giving cash to consumer groups to monitor any heavy 
handed tactics in the future. With regard to the software industry, 
individual companies that can show damages should be compensated, 
e.g., Netscape, or at the very least settlement money should go to 
the Small Business Administration (or non-government analogues) for 
them to help software start-ups, which would promote more 
    The most obvious places to send any settlement money would be to 
these victims. Otherwise the injured parties will have no redress 
for the damages wrought by Microsoft. Microsoft's current proposal 
is a little bit like offering to give money to a for-profit 
orphanage run by Microsoft as a punishment for having robbed a bank. 
Sure, some orphans may benefit (and probably will be trained to be 
future bank tellers), but Microsoft still keeps most of the money 
and the bank gets nothing. Of course, paying damages to the software 
industry would likely result in greater competition by infusing 
capital into a sector that certainly can use it. Furthermore, paying 
money to an independent watchdog consumer group would tend to 
prevent Microsoft from freely using its monopoly power in 
anticompetitive ways. I'm sure Microsoft had very conscious reasons 
for choosing the particular market of education and ignoring the two 
groups most directly affected by its anticompetitive actions, and I 
leave it to the reader to decide for themselves what those reasons 
    Counterproposals Make for Bad Law and Will Further Reduce 
Competition That's why it's so fascinating to me that with market 
determination being so central and critical in the world of 
antitrust that no one is questioning the choice of market for the 
settlement. I don't know of any parents that wouldn't at least 
question a proposed punishment for their children's wrong doings, if 
they were even liberal enough to allow their children to propose 
their own punishments in the first place. Regardless, the main 
counterproposals from commentators seem merely to concentrate on 
Microsoft settling with a full cash payment instead of supplementing 
the settlement with Microsoft software. The states' proposal 
basically would force Microsoft to license its source code and keep 
producing Microsoft Office for the Apple Macintosh and maybe Linux. 
Such suggestions seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
    The step in the right direction is that Microsoft pay damages in 
cash. Last time I checked, this was still the United States of 
America and the official currency was a green-back and not a license 
for Windows. The step backward is that the state governments are 
considering requesting that Microsoft actually widen its Monopoly by 
having Microsoft enter new markets, either itself or through 
licensing, that it currently does not dominate, e.g., Linux. The 
states basically want Microsoft to open up its source code in return 
for licensing fees. Great! Now the states are basically making 
Microsoft's code essential. We've seen that even with supposedly 
open standards such as Java, HTML, etc. that individual companies 
are capable of steering and using those systems to proprietary 
    One unpropitious scenario that may result from such a forced 
licensing system is that

[[Page 25055]]

Microsoft technology would now become even more dominant. A 
significant collection of software developers on the Linux platform 
could be adversely affected by Microsoft bull dozing in with its 
Office suite; this would allow Microsoft to use Office as leverage 
to subvert the platform as it has often been accused of doing with 
the Macintosh platform. Where do you think most people (or at least 
most corporations) will buy their version of Office, Microsoft or 
some secondary licensee? And even if you buy from a secondary 
licensee, Microsoft still makes money on licensing fees as per the 
states' proposal because Microsoft would be entitled to receive a 
reasonable royalty for its intellectual property. It's as if the 
states are trying to help Microsoft spread its wares even further 
with this solution.
    I cannot recall any settlement in antitrust history where a 
solution to a monopoly was to further expand existing and/or 
potential markets with the monopolist's products. The law seems to 
require quite the contrary. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2. Yet at every turn, 
counterproposals seem to actually expand the adoption and/or reach 
of Microsoft's products. Microsoft suggests donating software, which 
would further saturate the educational market. The states suggest 
entry into alternative markets from which Microsoft will benefit by 
way of increased licensing revenues. Even merely giving cash to 
schools for purchasing software (as suggested by some commentators) 
will tend only to strengthen Microsoft because it will continue to 
benefit from its monopoly position. Buying Market Share Witness its 
Xbox game console. Microsoft's Xbox retails for $299, but it is 
rumored to lose about $125 on every unit it sells. So, perhaps, it 
is not surprising that Microsoft is willing to spend money on 
capturing more of the education market.

Microsoft Gets Everything It Gives

    For example, even if Microsoft gives cash to the schools, Apple, 
likely, still will get screwed. Assuming Microsoft gives the schools 
$1 billion for computers and software, Microsoft will still win 
market share and its actual costs will remain low. Why? The schools 
will hand most of Microsoft's money right back to it to buy 
software, and the government will also end up kicking some money 
back to Microsoft. Even if half the schools buy Macintosh computers 
(which is roughly Apple's market share in the educational market), 
the schools will still buy Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office costs 
a lot more than a license for plain old Windows. And let's face it, 
if Microsoft ever kills Office on the Macintosh, it will have 
terrible consequences for the platform; and if someone were to 
speculate what a nasty monopolist would do when given a chance, then 
one might speculate that such a nasty monopolist would kill Mac 
office, which would force the remaining 4% of the computing world 
over to Windows. The point being, one way or the other, a large 
portion of any cash settlement will come back to Microsoft by way of 
software purchases, and Microsoft will still be able to leverage its 
products unfairly across markets. Furthermore, Microsoft will be 
able to write off the $1 billion settlement as a loss and recoup 
from around one third from the government. I.R.C. Sect. 162(g); Tax 
Reg. Sect. 1.162-22. In the end, a cash settlement still will cost 
Microsoft relatively little while at the same time it still will 
increase its market dominance, and the reason why remains the same. 
They are a monopoly.

Just Because You Used To, Doesn't Mean You Still Can

    A little example may be in order. If you are Acme Inc. with 1% 
of the PC market and wish to bundle your screen saver with your PCs, 
no problem. The government might even hold you up as a ``go getter'' 
in the sense that you are trying to compete to win market share. 
However, if Acme starts to win more and more market share and later 
owns 99% of the market, then giving its screen saver away for free 
might be considered to be dumping, tying, predatory pricing, and/or 
the like illegal activity because it is now a monopoly. So there are 
some things, i.e., the very kinds of things, that are encouraged in 
a competitive and open market that become illegal once you attain 
the status of a monopoly. Wolfson v. Artisans Say. Bank, 428 F.Supp. 
1315, 1321 (D.Del. 1977).
    Nothing the government is currently proposing is designed to 
change that fundamental reality. Apparently the only arguments that 
proponents of the proposed settlement provide is that at least a 
cash settlement would cause Microsoft to lose some money. However, 
that seems to miss a great irony of why Microsoft is supposedly 
being punished in the first place. As any M.B.A. will tell you, 
Microsoft, as with any other corporation, wants to own every market 
to maximize returns for its investors. Owning the education market 
would help Microsoft shore up its current dominance by getting young 
people ``hooked'' on its products. By getting kids hooked early, 
they are less likely to try other systems because the cost of 
learning a new system is not insubstantial. Furthermore, Microsoft 
certainly shows it is willing to invest money to gain market share.
    Thus, such a settlement, arguably, can be viewed as just a cost 
of doing business to garner market share. The irony is that a 
monopolist is not allowed to give products away or sell them at a 

Xbox Errata

    With the government practically abetting a convicted monopolist 
in anticompetitive practices on its core products, there seems 
little likelihood that there will be an investigation into 
Microsoft's Xbox pricing and other tactics used to enter and buy out 
the gaming market; tactics that arguably may violate other antitrust 
laws. Of course that didn't stop me from buying one as it is the 
most incredible gaming platform I've ever seen (particularly with 
Halo, the formally independent producers of which have been bought 
out by Microsoft), but I digress.
    Such predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally 
illegal for a convicted monopolist. U.S.v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 
U.S. 495, 530 (1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. 
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985). 
Thus, it is currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to 
the educational market for free or at a price below its costs 
because they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the 
government agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the 
states, then the government will at the very least be providing 
Microsoft with an exception to this rule, or at worst be a 
collaborator in illegal predatory pricing and dumping. It is not 
even clear if DoJ may allow the states to settle with Microsoft when 
the settlement terms, arguably, further require breaking the 
antitrust laws. Setting up an end-game as beautiful as this 
certainly deserves adulation in the annals of business history. The 
lawyers at Microsoft must be dancing jigs of joy all day long at the 
thought that the government may actually require the company to 
increase its software penetration in various markets and in some 
cases be allowed to use tactics that otherwise would be illegal.
    Microsoft's proposed settlement, which is ostensibly a 
punishment for anticompetitive monopolistic practices, is refreshing 
in its outright obnoxiousness. They deserve kudos for selling their 
proposal without anyone questioning the fundamentals. Microsoft has 
managed to frame the settlement so that people are not questioning 
how, where, and/or why it should be punished, but boiled things down 
to only a question of how much it should pay.

Kids Are Irrelevant

    I suppose people are afraid to question giving money and 
resources to the schools ``for the kids.'' And don't get me wrong, 
I'm all for improving education in the United States. In this case, 
however, the kids simply don't deserve this money. That is because 
the greatest harm befell the public at large and countless 
innovative software companies (their creditors, employees, 
investors, etc.), which were driven out of business, stunted from 
pursuing markets for fear of oblivion, and/or never materialized 
because Microsoft's presence and practices were too ominous an 
obstacle. Those are the people that were primarily smashed and/or 
pushed around by Microsoft as mentioned throughout its antitrust 
trial. If any one industry was wronged and deserves recompense, it 
is the software industry as a whole (excluding Microsoft of course). 
Yet no one is even considering directing damages to the software 
industry when it was the clear victim. This is shameful; the kids 
are not more deserving here. And if you think I'm being a big meany, 
please refrain from being a big ole hypocrite and don't bitch if 
(heaven forbid) your home is burned down, and then the arsonist 
decides it would be better to give money for rebuilding your home 
``to the kids.'' Regardless of where the money should ultimately go, 
it's amazing the choice of where it should go has not been the 
subject of much, if any, debate or dispute.

Government Bargain

    The government, save for a few states, certainly doesn't seem to 
have questioned anything all that much. The DoJ's perspective seems 
to be ``we've told Bill he's been naughty, and he promised he'd be 
good.'' Microsoft has promised to be a good monopoly, however, 
Microsoft's outright cheap (offering to expend a few million in 
actual costs while claiming it's worth $1.6 billion while knowing 
the states are likely to

[[Page 25056]]

collect over $14+ billion if the case goes through trial is at the 
very least thrifty) and duplicitous proposed settlement, its 
structure, and the chosen market should be evidence itself as to how 
solemnly it regards its obligation to be a good monopoly. Generally, 
it is questionable if it is even possible to be a good monopoly. 
Supposedly a good monopoly is one that doesn't engage in 
``anticompetitive'' practices (IP right holders and their government 
sanctioned monopolies withstanding, which is a topic for another 
day). Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel, 195 F.3d 1346. That seems to 
imply that Microsoft should then engage in competitive practices. 
Yet, that's what Microsoft has been doing all along, i.e., competing 
like crazy, and why it's in trouble now. Or perhaps the government 
would like Microsoft not to be competitive so that the rest of the 
industry will be able to compete with an artificially handicapped 
monopoly? Neither solution seems to result in a truly competitive 
market. The only solution proposed, so far, that would result in a 
situation where Microsoft and the rest of the industry could all 
truly compete is where Microsoft's hold over the industry is broken.

Break-up Complimentary

    Microsoft's brilliant business practices have made it a dominant 
force. Bill Gates and company truly deserve a great deal of praise 
for demonstrating incredible business and political acumen. I'm not 
trying to be sarcastic and my praise is genuine when I say that Bill 
Gates is the best businessman ever to walk the earth. Truly the 
highest compliment the government and President Bush could pay Mr. 
Gates would be to regard him as one of the greatest American success 
stories of all time. Mr. Gates should be in an elite cadre of moguls 
who won at playing the American dream. Just like J.D. Rockefeller's 
Standard Oil, Bill Gate's Microsoft needs to be broken up. Yet the 
DoJ, after winning the antitrust case against Microsoft, has gone 
from promoting a break-up as a remedy to shunning it for a 
settlement with the apparently coincidental arrival of the Bush 
administration. Why settle a case on poor terms now? To be sure, 
there are reasons to settle after winning a case, but these usually 
revolve around the strength and cost of an appeal. The government 
claims it has a solid case on appeal, and the cost of an appeal is 
irrelevant (relative to the ramifications of a poor settlement) to 
both Microsoft and the DoJ. So, once again, why settle a case on 
such unfavorable terms after winning on the merits!?
    You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to surmise 
that the Bush administration's inexplicably chummy perception of 
Microsoft has influenced the DoJ's about-face and acceptance of a 
Microsoft settlement. Certainly, the DoJ seems to have some 
interesting interpretations of what a just punishment is for a 
convicted monopoly that has driven away and/or killed off some of 
the world's most creative competitors by means other than merit.

Leveraging Honor Unwise with Monopolists

    The break-up solution at least addresses the unfair leverage 
Microsoft uses across markets by exploiting its Internet browser 
(Internet Explorer), operating system (Windows) and application 
suite (Office) line of products. The proposed settlement of giving 
money to schools will do nothing to reduce the inter-market leverage 
that Microsoft enjoys. In fact, giving the schools money for 
software and training will likely only increase the dependency those 
schools have on Microsoft's products. Furthermore, the DoJ 
settlement relies on Microsoft being ``good'' and somehow tempering 
its extremely competitive nature. Perhaps the DoJ should spread this 
new punishment policy to convicted serial murderers and set them 
free assuring us that they promised to be good in the future. No 
real argument seems to have been given as to why anyone can expect 
Microsoft to suddenly become and remain a good monopoly when it has 
thus far been incapable. However, history provides an argument to 
the contrary. Moguls are competitive. Successful companies are 
competitive. The very nature and manner of competing that was at one 
time legal, encouraged and the cause of their successes (e.g., 
lowering prices, building market share, driving lesser competitors 
out of business) have (in many instances) become illegal practices 
once they were found to be monopolies. Standard Oil Co. of New 
Jersey v. U.S., 221 U.S. 1 (1911); Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel, 
195 F.3d 1346. As such, moguls and their successful companies are 
more likely to continue their practices simply from inertia. 
Certainly, Microsoft's latest acts seem indicative of 
anticompetitive recidivism: dropping Java from Windows XP will not 
help SUN; selling Xboxes at a loss seems to leverage its financial 
power derived from one market to move into another; disabling non-
Microsoft web browsers from accessing MSN demonstrates that even if 
Microsoft makes its proprietary source code variations to HTML open, 
it still likely will induce users to stick with Microsoft branded 
browsers rather than being hassled and jostled from services during 
the lag time it will take for licensees to implement any new 
proprietary ``features'' to obtain parity with the official 
Microsoft version; and using heavy handed licensing tactics in its 
Software Assurance Program (SAP--make up your own jokes) has 
garnered wide criticism for forcing a licensing strategy to make 
users upgrade more frequently than desired.
    If history serves as any lesson, a competitive mogul like Bill 
Gates will not become less competitive until he's declared an 
official winner and has no choice but to stop competing. There seems 
to be only one way to be declared a winner in the U.S. and that's 
through break-up as enjoyed by J.D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. 
Standard Oil, 221 U.S. 1. There is no reason to believe that Bill 
Gates and Microsoft will stop employing anticompetitive tactics 
until they are forced to stop competing with the full force of 
monopoly power. Anything less than a forced break-up will leave Bill 
Gates and Microsoft with the status of being mere contenders not 
important, successful, or dangerous enough to warrant a government 
break-up. It's doubtful Bill Gates could be satisfied with such a 
runners-up title. Thus, the government should provide Mr. Gates and 
Microsoft with the closure they deserve and declare them winners 
officially. In a certain sense, I believe Mr. Gates would be able to 
enjoy his victory having fought the good fight. If not, he can try 
to become the first person in the U.S. to have two of his companies 
broken up by the government.
    I will not rehash why Microsoft's proposal for (please place 
tongue in cheek) ``justice'' (please release tongue now--thank you) 
is akin to sentencing a serial murderer to work as an executioner at 
a prison and trying to pass it off as a ``community service.'' As 
long as Microsoft is allowed to exist as a monopoly, it will be 
nearly impossible to punish it in any meaningful way so as to 
provide disincentive from abusing its power.


From: JP0555@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice is not acting in the best interest of 
this country to pursue an antitrust accusation against the Microsoft 
Corporation. Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are an independent 
competitive corporation that has provided innovative and beneficial 
products and services to the businesses and consumers of American 
and the world.
    Why does the DOJ think profit means corruption? Microsoft is 
simply our American system of business working in its finest form.
    For the DOJ to listed to a handful of Microsoft competitors and 
their claim that they have been restricted from operation in a free 
marketplace is just irresponsible. We have a free marketplace and it 
is the responsibility of the DOJ to keep it that way, by allowing 
Microsoft, and other corporations like it to continue operating and 
exploring and creating new and exciting products and services, 
without interference or restriction from the Department of Justice.
    Keep America Free! Keep our way of life and our way of American 
commerce unencumbered by useless and destructive litigation. Don't 
let the whining complaints of the few hurt the productivity and 
opportunity of the many.
    Jay Mathews
    10418 Sedgebrook Dr.
    Riverview, FL 33569


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:53pm

[[Page 25057]]

    Donald W. Wray
    450 Treasure Island Cswy. Apt #207
    Treasure Island, Florida 33706


From: Barbara J Cline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    3621 Oakwood Drive
    Bettendorf, IA 52722
    January 4, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to offer my views on the antitrust lawsuit that has 
been going on between Microsoft and the federal government. I have 
been reading about this case in the Wall Street Journal, and it is 
one that I have never understood or agreed with. I support your 
decision to settle.
    The case has had no positive effects, and the negative effects 
have been many. Schools are being hurt, the stock market has been 
affected, and the economy has dwindled as a result of the technology 
industry being hindered during the past three years while this case 
has gone on. In addition, the whole idea of the case is wrong in 
that it is stepping on the development of ideas, and this is a poor 
message for the government to be sending. Our economy is really 
struggling at the moment, and the government should be trying to 
find ways to stimulate it rather than ways to keep it down. Settling 
with Microsoft was a step in the right direction.
    Thank you for your support.
    Charles Cline
    cc: Sen. Charles Grassley


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that a decision will be made in the near future 
regarding penalties that will be assessed against Microsoft. During 
my working career I spent 30 years in engineering and management at 
    We used IBM and Microsoft software to run our computers for all 
kinds of design, analysis and marketing acivities. I am convinced 
that Microsoft provided the best software for many of our 
applications but we did use software from other companies for 
specific applications.
    I urge you not to break up the company or force them to release 
code to other companies. If they are required to release source code 
it would be no different than Boeing being required to release the 
software they use to design their airplanes and spacecraft. 
Microsoft has invested a large share of their profits to develop new 
software and expand the capabilities of existing software programs. 
They do not pay dividends to their stockholders, they put it back 
into research and development. It would not be fair to give 
companies software code that they could have developed themselves 
were they inclined to invest their profits in research and 
development. Microsoft did not become the largest software company 
by taking advantage of other companies, they became the largest 
because they had a great management team with a strong vision of 
what people wanted to do with personal computers.
    I sincerely hope that your decision will take into consideration 
the millions of personal computer users who have benefitted from the 
investments Microsoft has made in their software programs. Software 
for our computers will become much more expensive and less robust if 
Microsoft is required to release source code for Windows and other 
software programs.
    Anyone can make a difference,
    Everyone should try !!
    Duane Edmonds


From: Winslade, Winston
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I would like to express that this case should be settled today 
so that MS can move forward in providing low cost innovative 
solutions to the public. An engineer by schooling and involved in an 
industry that produced computer systems for mission critical control 
in the process industry, I know the pain suffered by users that were 
stuck (necessarily so because of no standards) with proprietary 
operating systems. It was not until MS introduce a more robust OS 
that could be used for industry that this industry started to move 
towards standards. This at a cost in the multi-millions of dollars 
to industrial users.
    The point is, without MS consumers would have experienced this 
same costly dilemma. That fact we have plug and play and an 
unlimited selection of application software that can be installed by 
even the novice user, is attributed to MS's leadership in the 
    Quite frankly, the consumer has never been hurt by any of MS 
practices. In fact, the consumers has low cost software and OS' 
because of MS. This case should never have been heard in the first 
    The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not 
necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer.


From: HIROLLERIG@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Why does the Government always try to brake down a company for 
getting big and making a profit. Isn't that the American Wau. LEAVE 
Microsoft alone.


From: elizabeth jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone! Hurray for Bill Gates.
    E. Jones, MD


From: Cris Von Wald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that I fully support the proposed DOJ settlement. It 
is time to move on and does no one any good to continue to draw this 
process out.


From: andy greenwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the agreement with Microsoft as it stands and 
let's get on with business. It's a competitive world, let's let it 
stay that way. Microsoft is one of the world's great innovators. Let 
their competitors ``compete'' with new and better products if they 
don't like the way things are.
    Andy Greenwood


From: Dr. Manton Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Settlement
    The settlement between the US Justice Department and nine states 
seems fair and just. Given the downturn in the economy, there is a 
pressing need to settle the litigation. Customers and taxpayers 
should and will benefit. Global competition should keep all players 
on their best in providing low cost and quality service and 
products. This settlement does not mean the end of monitoring. 
Global competitors, customers and government can bring complaints at 
any time and place.
    Manton C. Gibbs, Ph.D.
    Associate Director of the American Society for Competitiveness.


From: Andy or Gail Hatle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is damn well time to get off the back of Microsoft. If we, 
the consumers aren't happy with it, we can stop using it. We are not 
slaves to Bill Gates. How much have we wasted on useless persecution 
of a software producer, and how much had we spent going after bin 
Laden before Sept. 11, 2001? Let's get our priorities straight and 
consider the good of the country instead of following the path of 
Bill Clinton trying to repay his campaign contributors. We need real 
leadership instead of playing stupid political games.
    Andy Hatle


From: Dave Tomesch
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25058]]

Date: 1/4/02  1:07pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear To Whom it May Concern;
    I have been using Microsoft Software for several years with 
great enthusiasm. I like their software and the support I get from 
buying their products. I do not feel they have a Monopoly in any way 
compared to Bell or Hydro or Oil Or Gas or the Lumber Industry. I am 
certain that there are many Hackers, Malicious programmers that are 
Jealous of Microsofts Success and therefore only a monitary discount 
on products or services is required to settle any further waste of 
TAXPAYERS money on this CASE! PS I have used Atari products in the 
Past with 1000's spent on them with little or no help from the 
company! They definetly had a monopoly on their products in the 70's 
and 80's along with Apple and you did not see any lawsuits then!!!. 
If you really wanna know what most consumers think, they think Unix 
and Internet programming companies are jealous of Microsofts 
successes and several Democrates took advantage of Taxpayers dollars 
to push a Insufficient evidence case against microsoft compared to 
reality. Reality is Oracle has or had a monopoly on Internet Servers 
(WHERE's THEIR MONOPOLY CASE???, You can use their own commercials 
on TV against them(we have 100% of the Marketplace on servers was 
their slogan!) The list could go on and on so I hope the Justice 
Department ends this case soon, give Microsoft a slap on the wrist 
along with Oracle, Sun Microsystems etc and get on with Consumer 
Products from all the US and Canadian Companies. Setup a department 
for Monopolies in any field of US. Commerce) Because in Reality 
Microsoft could move to Canada and what CASE would you have then? 
US. Laws do not work in Canada or we wouldn't have BELL CANADA or 
PetroCan ETC, and their are many more real big monopolies around the 
WORLD! (GOLD Companies ETC So putting the computer Industry in 
perspective!!!!!! if the key, I owned an atari 400, 800, xl800, 
1200, Atari ST, Atari STE, Apple, IBM Computers etc. etc. You can 
see Microsoft came out on top but maybe the future some other 
company might do better so let the industry continue and Maybe those 
new Tablet PCs made by other companes might be the next big thing 
who knows!!!.
    Sorry for the long PS but the Justice department should really 
be looking into why Oracle shares went from 25 dollars to 130 while 
Clinton was in office and back down again! There is a real monopoly 
of servers there and get with reality. I dont own a microsoft 
Monitor(its a clone) I don't own a Microsoft printer its from HP, I 
dont own a Miscrosft scanner its from IBM, I don't own a Microsoft 
Hard drive its from Western Digitial, all my software is 80% owned 
by other companies, Disney, 3D0, etc, 15% is microsoft Kids games or 
Operating systems, SO IN REALITY there is NO MONOPOLY HERE!!!!
    Dave Tomesch
    (You can quote me if you like!)


From: Dave Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:07pm
Subject: DOJ:
    Please stop the witch hunt of Microsoft being orchestrated by 
its competitors and their agent polititions. The whole issue 
revolves around the preposterous definition of the ``relevant 
    David L. Rice


From: RC Fullerton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    This lawsuit with Microsoft as defendent has gone on too long 
and now that there is a chance for a settlement, the action for 
settlement should be taken by the Court. RC Fullerton Canyon Lake, 


From: BKhynes@cs.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Civil Servants,
    The agreed upon Microsoft Settlement is just and the government 
needs to move on. This lawsuit has done nothing to help consumers 
from day one (Microsoft's products have always been fairly priced) 
and was initiated to protect competitors that could not compete with 
Microsoft. Agreed, Microsoft is a tough competitor but the reasons 
that it has succeeded are not do to monopolistic activities but to a 
new business vision on how to survive in a fast moving technology 
world. They pour more profits back into research and have the lowest 
paid management team in the industry. They operate the company like 
a graduate school where the rewards are stock options versus 
degrees. Their workers are highly motivated.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert J. Hynes


From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sir
    Please be advised that I think the settlement agreement with 
Microsoft is fair and the litigation should be ended as soon as 
    We have seen how the asbestos, tobacco, cigarette, breast 
implant and pharaceutical litigations have caused the demise of many 
fine companies. For the sake of the country we do not need excessive 
and oppressive litigation that will serve to protract the recession 
and bring about the demise of many fine companies.
    Would like to suggest that you take proactive measures to 
discourage lawsuits at all levels. Finalizing the MicroSoft 
Settlement would be a fine start.
    Thank you
    Frank Danaher


From: john j boyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not delay the settlement further. It is not in the 
best interest of the nation or consumers to drag this on any longer.
    Marsha E. Boyle


From: Scott Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a satisfied customer of Microsoft for over a decade, and as a 
dis-interested third party, I'd like to comment that the entire DOJ 
action against Microsoft disgusts me. Microsoft has, in the past, 
done much more public good than evil, at least from my viewpoint. 
Before Microsoft, interactivity between software applications was 
practically non-existent, and competitive products couldn't use each 
other's data. With Microsoft's so-called monopoly, my productivity 
has increased dramatically because I can now integrate one 
application's data into another application very easily. As far as 
I'm concerned, Microsoft should be allowed to continue operating as 
they have been until they actually cause harm to me or the American 
public. The only entities they've hurt are their competitors, and 
that's the way capitalism is supposed to work * * *
    Scott Brooks
    1519 Chardonnay Dr.
    Harker Heights, TX 76548


From: Jim Baskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have not seen consumers hurt by Microsoft's action, and I have 
not seen it proven in court. It has been disappointing to have our 
government fight against what I think is a great company, seemingly 
expressing the views of Microsoft competitors in court (not consumer 
views). As a citizen and taxpayer I ask that you end this litigation 
as soon as possible. The current Microsoft offer is a HUGE benefit 
to the nation.
    Jim Baskin
    Senior Consultant--MCS Microsoft Telecom Practice
    Phone (425) 705-3749 Pager 800-895-6003
    ``You can stomp the grapes twice as fast, but that doesn't 
create a 20 year Tawny Port in 10 years.''


From: Saddiq, Tareq
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter to lend my support to the settlement 
reached between Microsoft

[[Page 25059]]

and the Department of Justice. This lawsuit is just a way for 
competitors of Microsoft to feel good about their lack of success 
and block any further achievements of Microsoft. Even though I 
believe this suit should not have been brought about, it is better 
to resolve this issue and move ahead, rather than spending another 
three years in court.
    Microsoft has earned its success along the way. It has provided 
its consumers with quality care and service, which has tremendously 
helped in its worldwide accomplishments. Microsoft opponents have 
suggested terms that appear to stifle trade, such as uniform 
licensing price agreements. Even so, Microsoft has acknowledged the 
terms so that it can move on. This waste of American tax dollars is 
pointless. To stop this from continuing any further, all action that 
is taking place at the federal level be brought to an end.
    Tareq Saddiq,
    Senior Network Architect, Phone: (608) 278-7888 or (608) 225-
    CC: `Tammy.Baldwin(a)mail.house.gov'


From: Steve Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Steve Miller (sw miller@hotmail.com)
    From the outset I disagreed with the Government's prosecution of 
Microsoft. The success of any operating system platform is 
determined by those of use who write software for it. For years 
nearly eight million developers have written software for the 
Windows platform. Since so many developers have chosen to write for 
Windows the consumer had more applications from which to choose. 
Allowing the consumer to pick what they felt was fight for them.
    Microsoft Windows has been far more open and allowed consumers 
more choice than other operating systems. Other operating system 
vendors give you what they think you should have rather than 
listening to the consumer and providing the features important to 
the consumer. Since, the settlement is in place I think it should 
stand. While I continue to think that it is unnecessary it is better 
than the attempts to break up Microsoft. I think the break up 
attempt was a contributing factor to the soft economic conditions we 
are now in since our economy is technology driven. Any further 
attempts to limit Microsoft will only hurt the economy more and 
punish those eight million developers who have chosen to make their 
living using Microsoft technologies.
    Thank you,
    Steve Miller
    425 Kemper Drive North
    Madison, TN 37115
    (615) 612-1919
    sw miller@hotmail.com
    Steve Miller (sw miller@hotmail.com)


From: PacHome@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 4, 2002
    I believe that the Department of Justice should settle the 
Microsoft case. The agreement reached by the federal government and 
nine states with Microsoft addresses the reduced liability found in 
the Court of Appeals ruling.
    Further litigation is unnecessary, and harmful for the American 
    Valerie Hines


From: Mehran Behdjat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the most recent settlement between DOJ and 
Microsoft is fair and equitable and no more letigation is necessary. 
Continuation of letigation against Microsoft is detremental to the 
fragile U.S. economy and will hurt the technology and innovation as 
a whole.
    Mehran Behdjat


From: david faibish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--CASH ONLY!
    The penalty paid by microsoft should NOT be an in-kind 
contribution (of software, hardware, or services).
    Recipients should be free to choose who and what they buy with 
the proceeds of any settlement.
    Especially in the education marketplace which is one of the few 
where microsoft faces real competition (ie Apple); a ``forced'' gift 
that is platform-specific _undermines_ not enhances the very 
competition which is the goal of the penalty in the first place!


From: Chris Cleary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    People are envious of the success of large companies and 
individuals such as Microsoft and Bill Gates, respectively. This 
should not cloud the vision of the Department of Justice. Do not 
break up Microsoft.
    Leave the company alone, solve real crime, and go about you 
    Breaking up any company that has been made large and prosperous 
from people voting with their wallets is socialism. There are no 
barriers that Microsoft competitors have to surmount that have not 
been surmounted before. They need more creativity as they lack 
ideas. Microsoft's competition has not been outlawed as with the 
U.S. Postal Service and First Class mail; it is merely uncreative.
    Leave Microsoft alone and go after the real criminals.
    Chris Cleary
    Fairfield, Ohio


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Microsoft continues to abuse its' customers, the general public, 
and the laws of commerce in our great nation. Their arrogance is 
most apparent in the way in which they have launched the latest 
version of their operating system and its' integrated software. 
Microsoft has flaunted the very settlement and suggestions of the 
DOJ and the prior trial judge. The new version of the operating 
system is even more anti-competitive! Please reconsider, on behalf 
of the American people, your settlement offer.
    Dennis Brown
    Kaneland High School
    Maple Park, IL


From: James T. Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please approve the settlement and let all parties move on with 


From: Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice, With the settlement of the Microsoft case 
nearing the point where the District Court will rule whether or not 
this settlement is in the best interest of the consumer public, I 
wish to urge that it is.
    The proposed settlement with the DOJ and 9 states is tough, fair 
and appropriate. As a consumer, I have never felt that I was harmed 
in any way by Microsoft's business tactics. I believe that 
standardization is actually the consumer's best friend, assuming 
that the quality of the standard is upheld. I believe that Microsoft 
works very hard and invests millions, or even billions of dollars to 
ensure that their products are the best.
    As an investor, I have lost significant amounts of personal 
wealth in the past 18+ months, partly due to the economic downturn, 
but also in large part because of the case against Microsoft, which 
drove the price of Microsoft stock, and the stock of nearly every 
other company down. I have always maintained that the pressure on 
Microsoft stock, which is so widely held in private accounts as well 
as institutional funds, has had a large role in eroding our economy 
during the past couple of years.
    As a taxpayer, I feel that more than enough has been spent on 
this case. In the interest of the taxpaying public, I think it is 
time this case were settled and put to rest for good. I wish the 
other 9 states attorney generals who have not agreed to this 
settlement would also put aside political aspirations and act on 
behalf of the public as well, and join in this settlement agreement. 
Private interest groups who oppose this settlement do not have the 
majority of public interest at heart- for them it is a personal 
    Suffice it to say that as a consumer, and investor, a taxpayer 
and as an American, I feel this settlement is appropriate and 
necessary so that we all might get on with our lives and with the 
business of

[[Page 25060]]

strengthening the American economy. In order to do this, one key 
step is to put this case to rest. Please include my sentiments as 
part of the public record for the District Court to review.
    God Bless America.
    Kirk Werner
    Duvall, Washington


From: Maiale@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One thing more: a lot of this complaint by Microsoft competitors 
to the Government is beause they cannot compete in price and 
performance. Therefore we believe Microsoft has been punished for 
being efficient. The country does not need this sort of action by 
the Government. It stifles business innovation and loses jobs. Mr. 
and Mrs. Anthony J. Maiale 941-597-5864. 672 92nd Avenue, North, 
Naples FL 34108


From: Pete Detskey (ELN)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the anti-trust settlement that has been 
proposed with Microsoft. I write as both a small business owner and 
as a consumer of Microsoft software products.
    Capitalism works only when competition exists. Justice must be 
served in regards to the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement does not guarantee competition for new 
companies; it does not promote benefits to consumers.
    One flaw with the proposed settlement is that it leaves open too 
many loopholes on what code is not required to be made open to other 
business seeking to develop new products. It also seems to have a 
sunset provision on when the oversight committee will disband in 
several years. We need a permanent solution to the Microsoft 
monopoly problem.
    The nine states that did not sign on to the agreement have a 
better plan on promoting competition. For example, they require that 
Microsoft Office products be ported to rival operating systems.
    For consumers, consider the recent warning that the FBI issued 
regarding the security holes in the Win XP operating system. I think 
it is awful that the FBI has to issue consumer warnings--at taxpayer 
expense--because of Microsoft negligence. In a competitive 
environment, no company would release a software product with 
serious flaws; that action would risk going out of business. But in 
a monopoly, Microsoft has no fears and will bully everyone around as 
it sees fit.
    Justice must be served on the anti-competitive behavior of 
Microsoft. The current settlement offer does not safeguard 
competition in the marketplace. It provides no benefits to consumers 
with flawed software products.
    Justice is NOT served in the proposed settlement. I urge that an 
alternative settlement be proposed.
    Peter Z. Detskey
    Tucson, Arizona
    (520) 297-7289


From: Magnus Hammar Borsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well, maybe this is totaly unimportant for you. But I wanted to 
make myself heard. Since I am not an american citizen, I do not have 
any constitutional rights to express myself in this matter.
    But this is as important to me as it is for any american. 
Microsoft is not an ``american'' corporation, it is an international 
corporation and most people working for Microsoft are NOT americans 
(some are as me, swede's. Not to mention all programers from India * 
* *).
    Maybe you as americans, for once, should ask other nations what 
they think about Microsoft? And just maybe you should try to addept 
to others, instead of trying to change those who think different 
from you? Sooner or later your pride might be your fall, and that 
would truly be a sad end for a beutifull nation as yours.
    Magnus Hammar


From: David G. Odom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge in the above settlement case:
    I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found 
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating 
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version, 
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of 
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing 
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products 
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by 
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the 
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth. To believe 
that Microsoft is anything BUT a monopoly in the micro-computer 
market, is nonsense. Looking at anyone's PCs or any companies micro-
servers will tell you otherwise and the truth.
    Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is inadequate and 
that stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such 
tactics from being used in the future. I believe the proposed 
settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: 
halting Microsoft's illegal conduct, promoting competition in the 
industry, and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    I would be happy to discuss those controls if you need input 
from the ``regular public'' that has to suffer through the Microsoft 
monopoly environment.
    David G. Odom
    Tucson, AZ


From: JHWallis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Continue the trend away from the anti-business/anti-capitalist 
tenor left behind by the previous administration. The settlement is 


From: Nathan Vick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I would like to add my voice in favour of breaking Microsoft 
into an Operating System business and an Applications business. I 
think that is the only effective way to get Microsoft make windows 
more extensible for third parties, more standards-compliant (without 
embrace-and-extend) and more thoroughly documented. I think breaking 
them up is the only effective way to accomplish these goals because 
it is the only way that produces and fast-acting economic incentive.
    Nathan Vick
    Capilano College


From: PCCorral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For many of us who are in the PC industry we have know all along 
that this lawsuit was motivated, funded and perpetuated by Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle, the Sansoni legal eagles and other Microsoft 
competitors. Though there was some merit to the complaints about 
Microsoft's OEM pricing policies, those practices have been 
discontinued and remedied.
    The one who is really being hurt by the continuation of this 
case is the consumer. Microsoft's competitors don't want Microsoft 
to be able to add free new features to its software. But it's the 
consumer who would be hurt by this. It is time for this case to be 
settled. Do ever consumer out there a favor and settle it!


From: RGoodwill@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Drop the suit. It is a waste of money
    REGoodwill Jr


From: ETZZY@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Department of justices I am writing to you concerning the 
Microsoft settlement. I think the settlement is fair to all, and any 
future litigation will only hurt the consumer. I am disabled and on 
a limited income, (in some ways we all are, on limited income that 

[[Page 25061]]

and Microsoft has help me buy some products I might not otherwise be 
able to afford. I do own some Microsoft stock, which if the company 
was left alone the little bit I have invested will help my income 
someday. thank you for this opportunity to share with you.
    Ed etzwiler


From: MILLWOOD@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the current proposed DOJ settlement. Let's not 
get tangled in further litigation. Thanks


From: Brooks, Steve
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties 
    Steven J. Brooks
    Senior Systems Analyst, D.B.A.
    ADP COBRA Services, Inc
    wk. (770)-619-7200 ext. 1342
    cell. (770)-367-1759


From: jack timmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional for over 20 years, I'm shocked that 
the US government is still trying to sue Microsoft. Microsoft has 
contributed more to this country than all the other computer 
companies combined. Instead of a well deserved award, you are 
punishing them, obviously on behalf of their competitors in Utah 
(Novell), California (Sun/Oracle) and New York (IBM/AOL).
    Stop trying to kill the goose that continues to lay golden eggs!
    Shame on you for supporting their competitors in such a 
painfully biased and unfair way!!! It's incredibly obvious what a 
hack job this is.
    Jack Timmons
    Seattle, Washington


From: Mister Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Could you please advise as to the deadline for the public to 
submit comments on the Proposed Final Judgement? Is it Sunday, 6 Jan 
2002 which is 60 days after the 6 Nov 2001 posting of the Judgement? 
Is it Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002 which is 60 days after the 15 Nov 2001 
posting of the Competitive Impact Statment?
    Thank you.
    Mister Thorne


From: Robert Westerberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's stop wasting taxpayers' money and making life difficult 
for one of the great companies of the technological age whose 
continued existence is of paramount importance for the economy of 
the United States and the progress of global freedom. Bill and Paul 
took a chance way back when, in the true spirit of American 
entrepreurship, when computers were the toys of academia. Now 
Microsoft is being punished because they have been successful beyond 
anyone's dreams or imagination.
    Yes, I have a vested interest in Microsoft. It is the heart of 
our retirement plan. Stop jerking Mr. Gates around just because some 
whiners didn't take risks when the Internet Age was in its infancy. 
That is the real reason there is only one truly capable operating 
system for computers in the world today.
    Affirmative action is of the past--be it for people or 
corporations. Countless millions have been spent for lawyers in this 
matter so far. This should not become another AT & T attorney 
welfare scam.
    Hands off Microsoft!
    Robert Westerberg, faithful shareholder since 1998.


From: Dillon Dale Civ OC-ALC/LGPA
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  2:30pm
Subject: Comment on settlement
    Dear sir or madam
    Please be advised that I do not agree with the current 
settlement as proposed by the Dept of Justice.
    In summary, what I see is this, Microsoft owns the only 
trainstation, that is the OS. It knows where it layed the tracks and 
how the tracks operate, (internal workings of OS) this gives them a 
HUGE advantage on software development. No one else knows this as 
well as Microsoft and it protects and uses this knowledge to it's 
sole advantage.
    I am by trade an accountant. I have dabbled in computer systems 
for years, learning to program in various programming languages. I 
can remember Microsofts first set of side products that had direct 
impact on me.
    QuickBasic was the applications name, it was a wonderful product 
and it was all due to competition with Borland and the great 
programs that they had. (Borland lost a lot of ground when Microsoft 
switched from DOS to Windows version 95. Borland no longer makes a 
Basic programming language.)
    I can remember the big switch when Microsoft introduced it's 
Windows operating system and it's suite of Office products. Suddenly 
the things that I knew the most lotus, peachcal, supercal etc... 
spreadsheets disappeared from the store shelfs. Everyone had to 
learn a new interface, you couldn't share spreadsheets because of 
all the things Microsoft did to make it hard to switch from their 
product to other products. (This was no doubt by design and still is 
by design.) Microsoft now totally dominates the market when it comes 
to spreadsheets, but they still lag behind some of the original 
spreadsheets ability.
    Where our office went from lotus and supercal we acquired more 
work, not less, MS Excel created more keystrokes for us and a 
decrease in productivity. The macro ability was greatly reduced and 
it created for us a very large problem, we had to basically carry 
two spreadsheets. One DOS based from ages ago and the other Windows 
related (MS Excel). In short we still have not upgraded the majority 
of our spreadsheets because Excel does not do as good of job.
    In our office we use programs that where written in Basic or 
GWbasic many years ago. This ability and language was provided by 
Microsoft or IBM with the purchase of an OS many years ago. 
Microsoft no longer provides this type of program with the purchase 
of the OS, I admit I do find it strange that they will add an 
internet browser for free, but won't keep a language that was a 
standard feature of the OS for years and years. I am currently 
writing Java based programs to replace the programs written in Basic 
or GWbasic many years ago. If Microsoft is allowed to drive Java out 
of business or goes to big lengths to make sure it does not work 
with it's system then nothing I can do will replace those programs 
that we do business with now. I do not have the money to buy the 
solution from Microsoft. If you pay close attention to the 
Government you will find that a lot of Government facilities are now 
stuck with the older version of Internet Explorer (version 5.5 
service pack 2), because a lot of Government pages are written to 
work with Java. The newer version of IE (version 6) will not work 
with Java. Why would Microsoft do this? Is it now the most efficient 
product when viewing the web? How much will the Government have to 
spend to correct these problems? Or will the Government be stuck 
using Windows 5.5 with service pack 2 until MS decides it won't want 
to support it any longer? If they give it away as part of the OS 
package, then it shouldn't be a tool used to destroy the business of 
others. It should be made to work with other things out there.
    To me it is just like buying an OS for a computer that says it 
is designed for use in any IBM compatible PC, but it won't work with 
Seagate Hard Drives because our company owns Western Digital. BTW 
it's about the only OS available as it has driven every other OS out 
of the market, used it's OS to capture market share it does not 
deserve, because of unfair competition and it's insider knowledge on 
the OS. How does it benefit the public? We have seen that the courts 
ruled it was a monopoly.
    Now it's up to you the DOJ to fix the tracks so that other 
trains can run in and out of that trainstation without being 
derailed, your settlement leaves a lot to be desired and actually 
rewards Microsoft, does not force them to retreat from the practices 
that have hurt so many in the past and cripples innovation.
    Dale Dillon


From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    It has come to my attention that nine misdirected states are 
attempting to thwart the Department of Justice's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. After reading the proposed remedies, I have 
concluded that

[[Page 25062]]

these are fair and beneficial to the consumer in the long run. In 
the short run, it will serve to employ hundreds of lawyers to 
determine what courses of action are acceptable for the company to 
    When the nine states continue to whine about these remedies not 
being enough, they are truly letting their ignorance, lack of 
understanding of the market, and greed show through. As an example: 
Apple makes the only ``crash proof'' desktop computer on the market. 
Apple has a 100% market share for that market. Apple refuses to 
allow other vendors to manufacture compatible ``crash proof'' 
hardware. This Apple monopoly locks out any and all competitors, 
raises the market price of Apple hardware, reduces the market share 
of ``crash proof'' systems, and hence due to that minimal market 
size, discourages developers from creating competing products for 
the Apple platform. Each of these steps TRULY harms consumers. Were 
it not for these foolish policies, Apple would be a true competitor 
to Microsoft compatible computers today.
    In the days of the USSR (command & control) where only the 
government made automobiles, were they the best buys in the country 
for a good reason? Yes, it was due to their being the only 
automobile available to the few that could afford them. If the 
dissenting states were truly worried about consumers and 
competition, they would be working through the DOJ to force Apple to 
open their market. The fact they are not simply demonstrates their 
ulterior motives.
    The last 2 large anti-trust cases in U.S. history (AT & T, and 
IBM) had the unintended and ugly effect of turning these two symbols 
of American technology into bumbling giants void of any current 
serious innovation. Please look at the meaningless shell that is now 
AT & T before you decide to drag this case on further.
    Best regards,
    Michael Patrick Chaffey, OCP, CPA
    17516 NE 138th St.
    Redmond, WA 98052
    DISCLOSURE NOTE: I own less than 1000 shares of Microsoft stock, 
and have used the company's software products for over 10 years.


From: john himes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:46pm
Subject: microsoft
    Please let the micrsoft settlement stand and let our economy 
recover. This recession started the day Judge Jackson tried to break 
up micrsoft. It was a stupid move then and remains the same today.
    Thank you
    John E. Himes
    102 Melvin Ave.
    Catonsville Md.


From: Lynn B. Boman Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Department of Justice,
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
on November 2nd. I am anxious to see this dispute resolved, so I 
oppose further action against Microsoft. This settlement is fair, 
contains provisions that foster competition, and is good for the 
technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to share more information 
with other companies and give consumers more choices. Under this 
agreement, Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make 
it easier to install non- Microsoft software and must disclose 
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows.
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Thank you for your time,
    Lynn B Boman Jr.


From: Chris Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:57pm
Subject: microsoft problem
    hi there:
    I was told that I could send an email to you, offering up my 2 
cents worth on the microsoft fiasco--I believe that this company's 
business practices are beyond irresponsible--I would go so far as to 
say that their pure greed has put them in a position wherein one of 
their biggest goals is to squash any and all competition--which I 
think is a sorry state of affairs at best. with the situation as it 
stands now we have a STUPIDLY HUGE percentage of the computer 
software being controlled by one company: microsoft. apple remains 
the only real competition. the LOSERS are consumers like myself--who 
KNOWS where we might be today if microsoft had acted legally over 
these past years?
    Since microsoft has already been found guilty of multiple 
antitrust law violations, my opinion is that they should receive an 
extremely harsh penalty indeed; as severe as possible within the 
limits of the law. what I've read of the current situation (a fair 
bit) only shows the government willing to settle for a light 'slap 
on the wrist'.
    Let's have some JUSTICE!!!
    Thanks for listening,
    Chris long


From: DallasFlwr@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:00pm
    TO DOJ,


From: Robert Steffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dears Sirs:
    I support the comprehensive agreement reached with the U.S. 
Government and Microsoft Corp.. I think the agreement is fair and 
will finally end this costly and non-productive litigation. Please 
consider my opinion as you make your decision on this matter.
    Robert M. Steffy,
    Holtwood, Pa


From: Dan Van Fleet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been involved in the computer industry from before 
Microsoft became a widely known company. I remember the 640K 
capability of DOS, being what seemed like more than we would ever 
need, I admired and respected Microsoft at that point. My how times 
have changed.
    Today, I find Microsoft's actions to be horrid. I feel much like 
a young child in Chicago when he finds out that nice man down the 
street is actually a mob boss. The child asks his mother, ``That 
man, he kills people?'', his mother responds yes he does. The child, 
afraid, still smiles when the man says hi, he takes a bit of candy 
when offered, so to not upset the boss. Microsoft is that boss, 
ISV's and users are the children.
    Through my daily dealings with Microsoft software, I've felt 
Microsoft was unfairly using it's power to force it's products on 
the public. That has now been proven in court, the proposed 
settlement is not a solution. Microsoft has already ignored a 
similar solution, and lied about it through demonstrations in court. 
Don't let them do it again.
    Further, please do not let the actions of 9/11 cause you to go 
easy on Microsoft, that would be a travesty of justice. Microsoft is 
currently using those events to attain their goals, don't let them 
do it. It is a pity that Judge Jackson, so horrified by the 
testimony, spoke out of turn, don't let Microsoft take advantage of 
his mistake.

[[Page 25063]]

    Dan Van Fleet
    IT Director
    Dayton, Ohio


From: Hanaleisrf@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:14pm
Subject: Stop the idiocy of litigating against innovation
    Please stop spending my tax dollars to litigate against 


From: Philip Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    Please settle the Microsoft case with all states and let us, as 
the President said, get on with our lives. We, at this critical time 
in our country, do not need one more thing to drag down our economy.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Philip J, Robbins
    36 Rock Hill Lane
    Fort Thomas, KY 41075


From: Dkmar1@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled as soon as possible.
    D.K. Martin


From: DavidatEH@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This letter is written in support of the Microsoft Settlement 
with the hope that the already negotiated agreement will be 
finalized so that all parties will be bound by it and therefore 
complete the agreement forthwith. It is important that Microsoft 
competitors and some misguided states attorneys general are forced 
to comply with the already negotiated settlement and finish this 
protracted bloodletting at once.
    David C. Mactye, M.D.,
    PO Box 50, West Bloomfield, NY 14618


From: Dennis Gignac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to let you know that I have been following this 
case since the very beginning and have written to the Wisconsin 
State DOJ a number of times expressing my opinion on the subject. I 
find it very satisfying that now that there appears to be an end to 
this mess it is very close to my original opinion. Anyway, I am 
completely in favor of the current settlement arrangement and I feel 
strongly that Microsoft has not harmed me in anyway with their 
actions in the past. I will agree that Microsoft has taken a hard 
line with computer companies and although I see no real anti-trust I 
will concede that the USDOJ most likely knows that laws much better 
than I do. I will say that my opinion is that Microsoft has done 
more to protect the software industry and end users with the stance 
they have taken then damage they may have done to competitors.
    Anyway. I am strongly in favor of the settlement and it is time 
allow Microsoft to get on with their work of adding more features 
into their operating systems at will.
    Thank you
    Dennis Gignac
    Brookfield, WI


From: TwoVirgos@aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:27pm
Subject: Opinion
    We are in favor of the settlement worked out with Microsoft.
    Marlene & Alan Feinstein


From: Rollie Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern at U.S. Dept. Of Justice,
    I have worked in the computer industry for nearly 28 years. I 
have seen many things come and go since the early-to-mid 70's. One 
of the most ridiculous things I have witnessed it this incessant 
hounding of Microsoft. Why? They are successful. Get over it. Why 
are they successful? They build good products for which the public 
willingly exchanges value in the form of legal tender. Again, gladly 
is the manner in which they (the public and businesses) do so.
    Have you ever gone to an Office Depot or Staples or whatever 
store and seen anyone pushing people into the aisle with MSFT 
products? Any in hammer locks being forced to buy MSFT products 
while the Apple side of the aisle (or usually completely different 
aisle for Apple since there needs to be a whole aisle just for MSFT 
binaries) is nearly vacant? So you have choice, you have a free 
market, you have people voting by the millions with their checkbooks 
for MSFT products. I have used Sun Microsystems machines, which I 
consider better than most Intel-based machines for many tasks. I can 
and will use them when needed. The Sun Solaris operating system is 
excellent. In many cases better than Windows2000 or any other OS. 
There are a number of great applications. If there were not why 
would SUNW be a multi-billion dollar commercial success? I have 
Linux at my disposal on my Intel-based systems as well. I can run 
that and have. It's good for a lot of things. It has applications 
too. People run them. In many cases they are even free. You get what 
you pay for. That's why I have CHOSEN to buy Microsoft products for 
all my family's home needs. It's why I use them on my business 
laptop as well. They work and they work very well.
    Why not consider this and stop wasting my and other taxpayers' 
money by hounding MSFT any further? Jealously of their success is 
just some warped commercial form of class envy. Let someone else 
step up and do a better job than Microsoft and they market will take 
care of itself. Please get closure on this Microsoft litigation and 
free them to focus on doing their fair share, which they likely are 
more than willing to do, and channel their valuable resources into 
helping to get the economy into high gear again. Hounding Microsoft 
any further is wasteful of taxpayer resources, wasteful of Microsoft 
and Microsoft shareholder resources and just generally bad for 
    Thanks much,
    Roland Schmidt
    Auburn, CA 95602


From: Aaron Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a systems administrator and have been for 15 years. I have 
held an MCSE since 1999.
    I have been working with Microsoft products since Dos 2.11, and 
since Windows 3.0. I have worked with all versions of Windows NT 
starting with version 3.50 and up through the current verison of 
Windows XP.
    I have spent many, many hours with Microsoft products, learning 
them, supporting them, trouble-shooting them.
    I have been involved with Linux (RedHat) on a serious level 
since Version 7.1 (on a less serious level, since Version 6.2).
    With Microsoft, when there is a problem, I find that the 
solution is about 70% trying to figure out what the right menu 
option or button is to select to elicit a dialog that allows me to 
change the desired settings. 20% of the time is spent trying to find 
away around Microsoft's attempts to prevent me from ``doing 
something dangerous, that might harm my software''. And 10% of the 
time, I am actually resolving the problem.
    The key to troubleshooting Microsoft problems seems to be in 
rote memorization of menu-options, dialogs and buttons needed to 
change a desired setting.
    The key, with Linux, is usually a matter of editing a script or 
possibly recoding some software or component, which generally 
requires not only an understanding of why the problem happened, but 
also how the ``fix'' for it works--or at least knowing that you have 
access to the source code and other documentation that will help you 
to understand how the fix works, why it works, and how the program 
being fixed works.
    In short, it is something like the difference between knowing 
how to go to the store and purchase a loaf of cake, versus knowing 
how to actually make a cake from scratch (with documented and 
usually fairly clearly explained instructions).
    Microsoft is a closed system, a ``black box'', if you will. You 
generally put in your data and you get a result, but you really 
don't know how that result is generated. And when that result is not 
what is expected or desired, your recourses for figuring out why are 
quite limited, because you aren't allowed inside the ``black box''.

[[Page 25064]]

    Linux, on the other hand, is an open system. Like Microsoft, you 
put in your data and get a result out. However, if the result is not 
what is desired, or expected, you have the option of taking apart 
the ``black box'' and tinkering with its internal workings to make 
it work the way you want it to.
    Microsoft charges you for the privilege of using their 
software--their marketing effort focused primarily on emphasizing 
the claim that MS is easy to use and that ``if you know one program, 
you pretty much know them all.''
    Linux makes no such claim. Nor are you ever charged for it. 
However, with a little know-how and a willingness to learn and try 
to understand, what you give up in a generic, standardized 
interface, you more than make up for in terms of control of your 
system and your data. And, surprisingly, it is not very difficult to 
customize your system to make it just as `generically easy to use' 
as Windows. (Frequently even more so.)
    Now, Microsoft wants to offer us the ``.Net'' option, where we 
completely surrender control of our system to them in the form of 
paying a monthly or yearly subscription fee to ``rent'' their 
software. Ostensibly, this alleviates the need for upgrades, 
maintenance, and troubleshooting on the part of the end-user. In 
truth, in removes the ``ownership'' of the user's data from him, 
because, should the user decide not to renew this ``subscription'' 
to Microsoft's ``.Net'', service, they will find that they can no 
longer access their data because it is stored in formats understood 
only by Microsoft.Net programs.
    Not only are we being asked to surrender control of our 
computers to Microsoft, we are being asked to surrender control of 
our personal data. And, on top of that, we are being required to pay 
Microsoft a montly fee for the priviledge!
    Slavery is one thing. Asking the slaves to pay for the 
priviledge of being enthralled to a master who hardly has their best 
interests at heart is just plain stupid.
    I choose not to be part of this.
    I choose an operating system that does not require daily reboots 
just to keep running properly.
    I choose not to spend hours of my time trying to navigate 
through installation routines that have been made Byzantine in their 
complexity--in order to protect Microsoft's software license.
    I choose not to use an operating system and software 
applications that were designed with the assumption that I not only 
don't know what I am doing, but also that I am too stupid to learn.
    I choose not to be required to call Microsoft and inform them of 
every significant change I make to my hardware.
    I choose not to be an unwitting ``beta test site'' for products 
that have not been properly quality controlled because it was deamed 
more important to rush the product out the door in order to make a 
few extra sales.
    I choose Linux.
    I choose FREEDOM.
    With Linux, when there is a problem, I find
    Aaron Freedcyclopes@mediaone.net
    ``The truth is out