24292 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 86 / Friday, May 3, 2002 / Notices

MTC–00003461

From: David Hibshman

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 6:40am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Bill wins again. Computer Industry loses

again. One look at Microsoft’s latest OS

offering(XP) makes it clear why Microsoft’s

OS and applications should not be bundled

together and should probably be spun off as

separate companies all together. Windows Xp

offers MP3/WMA creation, Video Editing, Cd

Creation, Chat, Messaging, and Video

Conferencing all as part of the core software

required to run a computer. Microsoft clearly

uses it’s foothold on the Market to offer

otherwise successful third party software in

it’s own OS to help ensure they keep their

grasp on the industry and to bump off

smaller vendors from becoming bigger

competitors. Microsoft qualifies as a

monopoly in every sense of the definition

and should be punished for it.

MTC–00003462

From: Paul Rech

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:09am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

Dear Sir/Madam,

You’re no doubt tired of reading these emails, so let me cut to the chase.

The proposed settlement with Microsoft

will not do a thing. None of the provisions

will have any effect, which may be what the

current administration really wants.

Here’s what would make a difference and

it’s quite simple.

1) Open their file formats, protocols, APIs.

2) Allow vendors to clearly price the cost

of the Windows OS when you purchase a PC.

The former will allow all companies to

compete again in application software. MS

keeps data locked into their apps by changing

these formats every now and then. Forcing

consumers to keep using their products. MS

Word is the standard not because it’s the

best, but because so many businesses have

data stored in those types of docs. They don’t

even want to think about the hassle of

converting. The latter will show people how

much they have to pay for the MS OS and

allow them to choose to pay for it or not. Lots

of people have a perfectly good copy of Win

98 sitting around, why should they have to

buy XP with a new computer when they

don’t want or need it?

Get rid of bundling once and for all.

Paul Rech

Computer Consultant

651–430–9935

rechpj@bitstream.net

MTC–00003463

From: Ray Drainville/Argument from Design

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:13am

Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To Whom it May Concern:

I’m adding my voice to those who are

against the settlement with Microsoft over its

monopolistic practices, as that settlement

stands today. There are some simple, yet

important reasons why I’m doing this:

* Having MS give away a billion dollars

worth of software & refurbished hardware to

the country’s poorest schools doesn’t punish

the company: what it does is greatly

strengthen their hand in one of the last areas

in which they don’t currently have a

monopoly. One possible solution would be to

have MS donate one billion dollars to these

schools, to have them use this money for IT

as the schools see fit.

* This billion-dollar giveaway looks very

expensive for MS on paper, but that number

is based upon the market value of the

hardware & software: the actual cost to MS

is estimated to be about one-tenth of that

figure. This seems a ludicrously tiny

settlement for such an important violation of

law. Once again, forcing MS to donate one

billion dollars to these schools would be a

more effective way to punish the company.

* As the settlement stands, it requires MS

to share various types of code with

commercial rivals; ‘commercial’ is spelled

out in the document quite clearly. However,

currently MS’s strongest competitors come

from non-profit entities: Apache (web-serving

software), Linux, Perl, and those who are

building a compatible & free version of MS’s

.NET initiative. By not specifically including

these non-profit organizations in the

settlement documentation, the DoJ is

allowing MS to protect its monopoly from

those organizations who are most strenuously

competing with it.

* The settlement does nothing to propose

what is to be done should MS violate the

agreement. What if MS is proven to be acting

in an uncompetitive fashion again? The

agreement does not give the DoJ any teeth in

enforcing the settlement. It doesn’t give MS

any reason to comply.

I would strongly urge the DoJ to be

extremely cautious when writing up

settlements with Microsoft. History has

shown that the company is more than willing

to violate agreements, and the past decade or

so has seen them disregard mild remedies in

order to pursue their own interests. Give the

settlement some teeth; Microsoft, after all,

was found guilty. Currently, they won’t even

admit that.

Best,

Ray Drainville

Director, Argument from Design

Argument from Design-Web & Multimedia

ray@ardes.com http://www.ardes.com

MTC–00003464

From: Cody DeHaan

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:19am

Subject: What a Joke!

I find it rather a joke that Microsoft gets no

punishment for what they did.

Don’t get me wrong, I use Microsoft’s

products, but something should be done to

prevent it from happening in the future.

MTC–00003465

From: Rob Roth

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:34am

Subject: Settlement

Microsoft should be reined in on a tight

leash. The 9 holdout states are correct in

their perception of what this company can do

if not tightly controlled.

Microsoft has the technology to end up

controlling every ones computer and

CHARGING for it if not controlled. They have

already demonstrated that. 20 years ago they

broke up IBM for basically the same reason

they are looking at Microsoft.

Please stick to mission and hold tight the

reins on Microsoft.

Rob Roth

Hernando, Florida.

MTC–00003466

From: Jerry Davis

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 7:57am

Subject: comments on your judgement

It is quite clear to me that this was written

by lawyers who have no real experience with

software development and software coding. I

was agreeing to quite a bit of this until III.J

in which you opened the floodgates of a

gigantic loophole for Microsoft to jump into.

Given the history of Microsoft in the last 10

years. This amounts to ‘‘business as usual’’

for Microsoft. What a waste of our tax dollars.

You all did a masterful job during the trial

in showing us what a Monopolistic power

Microsoft was, then with this judgement you

have really blown it. No wonder Bill Gates

calls this a ‘‘fair’’ settlement. If I were Bill I

would too!

I would strongly suggest you take into

account the somewhat stricter format that the

other nine states are taking.

Two things that were not addressed at all:

1) data formats. The reason Microsoft has

such a hold on the PC market is its office

products. He who holds the keys to the data,

has control. There was NO mention of

providing the data format definitions of the

office products that MS has to third parties.

2) real competition. Most of your document

was about not limiting competition in the

Windows space. Very little about real

competition from Apple and Linux, FreeBSD,

Beos and other possible contenders.

The reason that real competition will not

be achieved with your document is that there

is no provision for MS to be open with its

data formats, and communication protocols.

What about what they did with Kerberos

with their ‘‘embrace, extend, and extingush’’

method of changing the Kerberos

authentication scheme that all other OS’s use

but now do not work with Windows Servers?

Until there is real choice of OS, meaning

that MS Office products are required to run

on all other Platforms, other OS’s will never

have a real chance to compete. And until we

get real competition MS will continue to

have a monopoly in the software industry.

And we as consumers will never have a real

choice.

MTC–00003467

From: Stephen Perez

To: Microsoft ATR

Date: 12/8/01 8:41am

Subject: Support for States/DC Microsoft

Settlement

I just wanted to quickly write in support

of the settlement proposed by the 9 states and

DC. The DOJ’s previous decision was too

much of a wrist slap, full of loopholes which

Microsoft’s lawyers will be more than happy

to exploit. To be quite honest, after reading

the original proposal (not Judge Jackson’s,

but the next one) I got the eerie feeling that